Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

IQ tests indicate an ability to do well on tests, not intelligent. Since passing tests like the SAT is a stepping stone to higher education, and ultimately better job opportunites, it makes sense for it to predict those outcomes. It still doesn't say anything about that person's inherent intelligence. Even if intelligence could be measured and reduced to a single number, that doesn't mean the gap is a result of race.

At 12/23/14 06:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: - Intelligence is hereditary: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qij_wD7_kQ, twin adoption studies etc.)

More than likely it is hereditary to some degree, but it's a moot point since intelligence can be influenced by things other than heredity. How do you isolate heredity from social factors?

-Whites of all wealth levels out-perform blacks on IQ tests

And social-economic issues extend beyond wealth.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/819409: "Circulating testosterone...concentrations exhibit substantial heritability in adult men."

Who's disagreeing with science now?

*yawn* testosterone levels are effected by more than hereditary, so this argument runs up against the same kind of wall.

The surveys you cite of biologist opinion are old (most recent being 1984, 30 years ago), and even so the survey is meaningless without knowing the definition of race being used. Even if most biologists did believe in the white-black-asian conception of race that dominates public thought, most biologists don't have the specialization in genetics necessary to have an informed opinion on it anyways.

The first study you link is flawed because it took a sample group, and then fit the members into genetic clusters after taking their genetic information, rather than forming a model and then running a random sample against it as a test. I can't make heads or tails of the second study as it's too heavy on genetics terminology, but I imagine it has the same problem.

Yep if police profile based on sex that's sexist. Not sure why you have such difficulty grasping this concept Sadistic. Police should make judgements based on observable facts not on their own prejudices with regards to race, sex, religion, whatever.

Also for someone crying so hard about sticking the facts, you sure seem to be aloof of them yourself. Mainstream biological science has rejected the theory of biologically determined race for over half a century. What is your counter evidence? IQ tests aren't particularly indicative of anything, and even if they were disparities could be the result of social-economic differences rather than biological ones. Testosterone, while biological is far from hereditary so that's not a good argument for black people being inherently inferior either.

Your claim that racial differences can be told with 99% accuracy by DNA and skeletal structures is simply untrue. Some studies claim to show this, but attempts at replicating their results always fail.

It must be tough being a full blown racist in the 21st century Sadistic. First science abandons you some seventy years ago. Now public opinion is increasingly abandoning you. A tough situation indeed.

Well this thread took a suprisingly progressive turn.

At 12/22/14 10:31 PM, Warforger wrote: I'm willing to bet that higher crime rates among black people lead officers to have prejudice against them even if it is subconscious and they themselves aren't racist, and then in turn for stuff like this to happen where they assume that since they're black they're more likely to commit crime.

That's still racism though. Even if you try to rationalize it by saying "people of this skin color, on average, have higher crime rates so I should be more suspicious of them", you're still profiling people based on race. Police officers who do that are racist.

At 12/21/14 01:45 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: You're a tool.

Dear LazyDrunk,

I've offended you, and for that I apologize. Despite your unnecessary hostility towards me, tonight I will pray to G*d that one day, for your own sake, you will be able to cease collecting your own toenails and urine long enough to form an original thought.

Well let's see. Are "black people" a single monolithic entity in favor of killing cops? No. So I guess your post was factually inaccurate. Not to mention the whole tone of an argument for what kind of behavior one would expect from "black people on twitter" is pretty clearly racist.

At 12/21/14 06:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: What exactly is the point of calling my post racist?

Um... not letting racism pass unchallenged? And yeah, you could apologize and admit that your post was poorly thought out, which might mitigate things a little. I don't expect you will though (lol).

At 12/21/14 05:23 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: What a great and intelligent contribution!

Yep, calling out thinly veiled racism is in fact both great and intelligent.

At 12/20/14 07:55 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: And...black people/progressives on twitter responding pretty much how you would expect them to.

http://twitchy.com/2014/12/20/can-they-breathe-execution-style-killing-of-two-nypd-officers-celebrated-salute-the-shooter/

I know you're not self aware enough to recognize it, but this post was racist.

You're idea just ignores empirical reality. First of all, in contemporary domestic politics, winning elections isn't primarily driven by policy. I'm frankly unconvinced that policy is the leading factor in winning elections. Modern campaigns are basically driven by marketing, having the right slogans, framing your opponent in the right way, framing yourself the right way, etc. Political realities like gerrymandering also play a role.

If, say the GOP recused themselves from elections and truly allowed "progressives" to take total control, they'd suffer political consequences that they'd probably never recover from. Consider the fact that just being the incumbent politician drastically increases your chances of getting elected. Conservative politicians would irreversibly cripple themselves.

Furthermore, it's not clear that the power vacuum caused by the absense of conservatives would be filled with new conservatives. It's quite possible that as conservative politicians withdrew, far left politicians would offset more moderate progressives in other areas of elected government.

Basically this idea is a terrible strategy for conservatives. No political organization in their right mind would pursue it.

Global Warming: Positives and Negatives

Long story short, the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. Especially considering that a new understanding of the science developed over the last decade lays out a potentially apocalyptic scenario. With the world currently on track for an increase of 4 degrees celsius, many scientists are saying this alone is enough to reduce the carrying capacity of the earth by an order of magnitude.

At 7/9/11 07:35 PM, Sydney Morning Herald wrote:

Keynote speaker Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute and climate adviser to the German Chancellor and to the EU, has said that in a 4-degree warmer world, the population âEUoecarrying capacity estimates [are] below 1billion peopleâEU.

This means billions of people will die. Furthermore a temperature increase of 4 degrees will likely be enough to melt massive permafrost stores carrying billions of tons of green house gases. This would create a feedback loop that would accelerate warming on the planet in a way outside of human control, making net temperature increases of 6-10 degrees inevitable. And 6+ degrees warming is uncontroversially enough to end human civilization as we know it.

At 8/21/11 10:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Face it. Israel as a country is legitimate. They acheived the status as a country the same way as every modern country does. You cannot say that Israel in not legitimate and then say Kosovo is, just because you don't like some of the things Israel did prior to gaining legitimate status as a country.

Uh no, the de facto existence of state does not grant it legitimacy. Not unless you're going to argue that the only metric by which a state gains legitimacy is it's ability to sustain itself. In which case all states in existence are legitimate by your definition, including states like North Korea

It's a lost cause friend, nobody here understands Anarchism as a political movement. They don't understand that Anarchy simply means the absence of coercive hierarchy, not "no rules" and a mad max style wasteland.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a Libertarian Socialist. More power to you

At 7/30/11 12:51 PM, Confucianism wrote: Capitalism is not any part of Anarchism in any way shape or form. I would like to know where you heard this and why you think this.

He's referring to a group of individuals that call themselves "Anarcho-Capitalists". It's a really funny, axiomatic political movement that believes in replacing the state with private capitalist institutions (which basically end up governing like states). There are several who post on this forum. Sad cases

At 7/30/11 04:01 PM, Proteas wrote: You said it was "possible," you didn't explain HOW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commu ne

TL;DR society is governed by small, highly decentralized communes. There are no real "leaders", but there are elected delegates who can be recalled at any time by popular vote. Societies basic functions are handled by community institutions.

Many Americans feel they're responsible for Israeli war crimes, since Israel receives so much military aid and support from the United States. The United States doesn't directly fund the armies of China, Iran, or Syria. Israel/Palestine has also been one of the world's longest ongoing conflicts, which has attracted a lot of attention to it.

At 7/19/11 05:15 AM, YK-Blaze wrote: I mean even Gaza said they do not need the supplies that the flotilla brings.

Not sure what you're talking about. Gaza is definitely under-supplied and in desperate need of construction materials. According to the UN, Gaza needs about 670,000 truckloads of contruction material to rebuild itself, and only about 715 truckloads are allowed in every month. Furthermore, Israel has prevented the importation of supplies necessary for filtering water, leaving about 95% of the water pumped into Gaza unfit for drinking. Those are just 2 dramatic examples of the toll Israel's seige is taking on Gaza. BT'Selem has a good article on their website that sums it up pretty well. Here's a small excerpt:

According to a survey conducted by the International Red Cross, in May 2008, 70 percent of Gazans were living in poverty, with a monthly income for a 7-9 person family of less than $250 (one dollar a day per person), and 40 percent of urban dwellers were living in deep poverty (a monthly income of less than $120, a half a dollar a day per person). The Red Cross's figures also showed that, in 2009, 75 percent of the residents, more than 1.1 million persons, lacked food security, compared with 56 percent in 2008, and that dependence of the entire population on external aid was 5 percent higher than before the siege, and stood at 26 percent. According to figures of the Palestinian Bureau of Statistics, in the first quarter of 2010, 33.9 percent of the work force in the Gaza Strip were unemployed, and more than 50 percent of Gazans under age 30 were unemployed.

At 7/4/11 10:12 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: You're a propogandist, an economic illiterate and a massive cunt. I only wish you were american, so that you would suffer during the upcoming state-caused depression.

IDIOT

Oh yeah? You're an abusive, pontificating little cunt. Economic illiterate? You have some amazing chutzpah lobbing that particular accusation when you subscribe to an economic dogma that's almost universally rejected by economists. Your views are a joke. It's outstandingly clear that you're unable to accept any evidence that contradicts your viewpoints. People don't bother responding to you after a while, not because you ever win an argument, but because everyone gets sick of your vitriolic claptrap.

Ugh, just go away.

Here's an interesting link I came across the other day. Noam Chomsky argues that most of the United State's technological innovation has come about as a result of publicly funded research, and not private innovation. It's a very interesting argument, and worth a watch. He rips into libertarians a lot. It's pretty entertaining.

Well I just looked up Hazmat and I agree that it's a slapping good time. Shame it got such a low score.

50k for a flash game? What games have been made that pulled 50k?

If we're to understand "free trade" as the neo-liberal orthodoxy that dominates the international finance community, that is: countries develop best in the complete absence of tariffs, subsidies, and other methods of price distortion; then I'd argue that free trade is counterproductive to development. For many reasons. Take Africa for example. In the post free-market reform period, Africa is completely unable to compete in global markets with its cash crops, against heavily subsidized American agro-business.

Competent economic development demands protectionist policies to nurture infant industries until they are capable of developing economies of scale to compete on the world market. These policies lie, in some form or another, behind every developmental success story from the United States and Europe to East Asia and Latin America.

At 5/14/11 07:09 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The law of comparative advantage means that they can both benefit from trade, even when one party does everything better/more efficiently.

"Can" does not mean "will". Free trade is often detrimental to developing economies.

Egyptian Army Pledges Not to Use Force Against Protestors

It seems that Mubarak has effectively lost the support of his military. While admitting that it's too soon to know for absolute sure, my guess is that Mubarak will be sharing drinks with his buddies in Riyadh by the end of the week.

What is happening in Egypt is truly spectacular. The protests are getting larger, and there doesn't seem to be any real means by which the government can control this situation any longer. There are already signs of the government trying to negotiate with the opposition, but I doubt they'll settle for anything less than Mubarak's resignation.

To add a little context to this discussion: the country is actually to the left of both the majority parties on several key issues. At least this is what all the polls tell us.

In regards to the wars, we know that about 58% of the US population is opposed to the war in Afghanistan, as opposed to 37% in favor (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 5-7, 2010). We know that 60% of Americans think that the war in Afghanistan is a "lost cause" (Bloomberg National Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Oct. 7-10, 2010). We know that 65% of the US opposes the war in Iraq, while only about 34% favor it. about 62% believe that invading Iraq was "not worth it". And while a clear majority of Americans favored Obama's draw down of the the troops in Iraq, 40% of the country thought that it should have come sooner, as opposed to 25% who thought that it should have happened at a later date (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Sept. 1-2, 2010).

In regards to healthcare reform, while right wing pundits may claim that it's some sort of disaster that nobody likes, the polls again paint a different picture. In fact, many polls show a direct split down the middle. One Kaiser polls shows that 42% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the health care bill, as opposed to 40% who have an unfavorable view of the bill (Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. Nov. 3-6, 2010). Another poll by Newsweek shows 44% thinking of the bill as "good" as opposed to 46% who think the bill is "bad" (Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 20-21, 2010).

Other polls show that certain parts of the health care bill are quite popular. Another poll by Kaiser found that about 78% of American's favor tax credits to business' that provide health care to their workers. 72% agree that medicare should cover the costs of seniors for their medicines (elimination of the "doughnut hole"). 71% favor the reforms that give "handouts" to struggling middle and lower class American's who cannot get health care through their jobs. 71% is in favor of prohibiting insurance companies for denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The only seemingly unpopular clause, is the one that forces all US citizens to purchase healthcare (similar to purchasing car insurance). 68% of American's are opposed to that part of the bill, but it's also the part of the bill that the Republicans are least likely to target (Kaiser Family Foundation Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. Nov. 3-6, 2010).

It's also worth noting that any time the public is polled for a single payer health care system, the overwhelming majority of the US is in favor of it. The last poll I know of (they don't poll it often, because it reveals such dangerous facts) was 2009. It found that 59% of American's favored "government" health care, opposed to 32% who believed health care should be left exclusively to private enterprise (CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 11-15, 2009).

On the issue of the economy, the country tends to lean left as well. While it's true that many polls show opposition to "spending", I posit that most voters are thinking about TARP or other big business bailouts when they see that word. When polls are more specific, the public tends to be in favor of stimulus. For example, a June 2010 Gallup poll found that 60% of the US approved of "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy." It's also worth noting that the same poll found 56% of Americans in favor of increasing energy regulations in order to prevent global warming, and 55% of American's in favor of increasing regulation on the US's major financial institutions.

As far as the tax cuts for the Rich go, Recent polls show some 53% of the country in favor of letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, as opposed to 26% that want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich (CBS News Poll. Nov. 29-Dec. 1, 2010).

So we can see very clearly from the polls that the country isn't moving right. The Republicans still have a lower approval rating than the Dems (even though both have dismally low ratings). The Republicans were only able to take the house because moderate and left wing voters didn't turn out at as high a rate as right wing voters did. Most likely, they didn't come out to vote because they felt alienated by the fact that the Democrats have seemingly surrendered to the Republicans.

Note: all sources for polls can be found at http://pollingreport.com/

At 12/5/10 01:16 PM, adrshepard wrote: So all the Iranian translators are wrong

And this is exactly where you're distorting the facts. The Iranian translators could be right, that "wiped off the map" is better translative wording if you don't consider the euphemistic effects of that phrase. The fact remains that his quote has been misinterpreted to mean an attack on Israel, when it clearly doesn't.

You say that the Iranians have done nothing to correct the president's words. Except that's a lie, and you know it. They have clarified Ahmedinejad's statements. As Iran's U.N. Press Officer, M.A. Mohammadi puts it:

"It is not amazing at all, the pick-and-choose approach of highlighting the misinterpreted remarks of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in October and ignoring this month's remarks by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that 'We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state.'"

So they have clarified the statement and have openly criticized the press for misrepresenting Ahmedinejad's remarks. The rest of your complaints are just patently dishonest, and I have to wonder if at this point you're just making stuff up as you go. I know you're not seriously insinuating that Ahmedinejad is personally responsible for making sure his words are properly translated in a language he doesn't speak. And the fact that he doesn't, isn't evidence that your tin hat crazy conspiracy theories surrounding Iran are true.

Yes, decades ago. But that's WAAYY more important than what Ahmedinjihad said two years ago.

Yes it is. The quote was "remember, the imam said...", so I'd say it is quite important to understand exactly what Khomeini said. I mean, you can try and sidestep around this all you want, but in the end what Ahmedinejad said remains a quote that is very well understood inside of Iran. It's very well understood to mean, that the collapse of Zionism is inevitable because of some divine mandate. I don't agree with it, but it's certainly not a battlecry for war with Israel.

At 12/5/10 10:49 AM, adrshepard wrote: Don't think I don't see through your "challenge." The best deception lies in omission, implication, and mischaracterization, not in any outright lie. For instance, that article states that the one Iranian guy tried to correct the mistranslation on the website '"but it was too late." What he doesn't tell you is that, years later, you can still find the exact same "incorrect" translation on the Ahmedinjihad's website, which the NYT author pointed out, and I pointed out to you.
http://www.president.ir/en/?ArtID=10114

Fact-starved? The opposing viewpoint comes from Iranians themselves!

Ahmadinejad doesn't speak english, so it's a translation, and as you are perfectly aware: Iranian translators are given certain liberties. So you're incorrect in saying that the Iranians are the the opposing viewpoint, that just another distortion on your part. Now, what nobody is questioning (aside those with an apparent interested in spreading disinformation, such as yourself) is that the euphemism was inaccurately applied to his words. A translator can argue all day that "wipe off" is a more accurate translation because of its transitive, but this doesn't mean he's arguing that western euphemisms can then be accurately applied to a loose (non-literal), translation of Ahmadinejad's words. Especially not when it's a quotation from Khomenei, that was understood perfectly when it was originally said. But whatever adrsheperd, don't let the facts get in the way of your bullshit, distortions, and lies.

At 12/3/10 07:25 PM, adrshepard wrote: You didn't answer my question.

I didn't, because it's not relevant. You're asking if a certain narrative is possible. As in "is it possible that Israel can't provide evidence for their outlandish claims because if they do the trrrsts will win." Or something to that effect. Right, well it's possible, but what's possible has absolutely no relevance. Just about anything is possible. It's possible for example, that the Japanese brutally invaded and colonized much of Asia, purely out of the goodness of their hearts, and out of desire to spread the "civilized" culture of Japan. The fact that such a scenario is possible, says nothing about how likely it is.

In this case it's pretty straight forward. Maybe it will be easier for you to understand if we treat it like we would any dispute between individuals. Maybe even a court case. A defendent, and a plantiff. The questions are the same. Namely, can the plantiff provide evidence? No. Well then there's no reason to believe his claims. It doesn't matter what excuses the plantiff uses to justify his complete lack of evidence, the outcome is the same. Here's another question. Does the plaintiff have a motive to frame the defendant? Well in this case, obviously yes. Painting anti war activists as terrorists helps Israel justify it's murderous attack on the Mavi Marmara and paint itself as the victim. Right so now the accuser has no evidence, and a motive to try and disseminate false information about the defendant.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. What's possible has no relevance. What likely does. And what's likely, is that Israel is, yet again, making stuff up in order to perpetuate it's national victim complex.

Man, you need to get out more if you think anyone who writes for a site called "anti-war" is level-headed or objective.

I don't see how taking a position on something makes it impossible to be level headed or objective. But if you're so sure, the offer still stands. Find me a factual inaccuracy in the article.

First, it's not an editorial, its a news analysis. Notice the couched phrasing with "seems." Also, it is not an editorial because it doesn't convey a single message. It presents two different viewpoints without passing judgment on either.

If this is "news", it's some of the most opinionated news I've ever seen. And no, clever wording to make it appear neutral does not anull this fact. It has a "debunk" format, presenting Jonathan Steele's arguments and then presenting some fact starved counter that's supposed to show Steele to be inept (something like that).

I could go through it point by point, but I'll just point out the core flaws in Ethan Bronner's "arguments." I'll quote the relevent passage:

If Mr. Steele and Mr. Cole are right, not one word of the quotation - Israel should be wiped off the map - is accurate.

And this is of course, complete nonsense. The argument has always been, as Mr. Bronner is undoubtedly aware, that the Iranian presidents words were misinterpreted to mean a call for violence against Israel, when he clearly didn't. Frankly, it's not even up for debate, because everybody recognizes that he was quoting Khomenei from a much earlier time (when Iran and Israel were closer), and not speaking in his own words. We know Khomenei at the time wasn't calling for warfare with Israel.

It's quite telling that Bronner never addresses the core arguments of the complaints, only tacitly sidesteps them.

At 12/3/10 12:38 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: LOL so getting rid of coercively funded government spending is orwellian?
lol even when orwell is anti-government, he's being pro-government, right?

I don't know why I'm dignifying this with a response, but there are several problems with your post. The first is that I never said that cutting government spending was Orwellian, I said that the title of the bill was Orwellian. As in it was titled "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" when in reality it was more a "Leave Needy Families Destitute and Without Feasible Recourse" act.

Secondly, you're a capitalist and thus deny the coercive nature of wage labour. I believe the wording is "It's a voluntary contract, you don't HAVE to work for a company". If that's your stance, you cannot claim that paying taxes is coercive, because you don't have to live in the United States, or wherever you live. You choose to pay the taxes of your country, voluntarily, by staying in it.

Thirdly, Orwell was a fucking socialist, and he was absolutely in favor of social welfare programs.
.
Hope this helps you with your critical thinking problem. Please check your facts next time.

At 12/2/10 11:36 PM, adrshepard wrote: And if they compromise any Mossad operations in the process, that's the price they pay for meeting your burden of proof, right?

It's not my burden of proof. It's the burden of proof demanded by any decent human being. If you accuse someone of egregious crimes, it goes without saying that you provide evidence for your claims. Anyways, Israel can claim national security or something like that, but it has no bearing on this. If they can't provide evidence, there's no tangible reason to believe their claims. Period. Especially in light of (as noted before) Israel's tremendous record of lies. As I'm sure any hard headed realist would agree.

Yeah, I remember how you showed me that antiwar.org source

Actually, I've never linked to anti-war.com as a source, as you are perfectly aware. anti-war.com is a journal, that hosts editorials, and analysis from numerous credible and independent journalists. I linked to an editorial from anti-war.com, which had it's own sources, and I challenge you to find one factual inaccuracy. Furthermore, (in exposition of your hypocrisy) we'll remember correctly that you linked to an editorial as well. One which contradicted your earlier claims by admitting mistranslation, albeit tacitly sidestepping this truth.

Did he tell you this before, after, or while you were sucking him off?

Unfortunately for you, the burden of proof isn't on Ken O'Keefe (or any other of the accused), it's on Israel. I don't have to provide a source proving anyones innocence, it works the other way around. You must provide the evidence, and despite your sidestepping and disingenuous smoke blowing surrounding the issue, it seems clear that you have none to present. this is unsurprising, given your tremendous record of deceit, which has painted you (accurately) as a sycophantic liar.

At 12/2/10 06:44 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i figured the whole "nothing but the destruction of Israel will ensure peace" was another fairly considerable reason for the lack of negotiations.

Yeah, that's what nationalist movements tend to be like. Racist, violent, etc. It doesn't mean you can't negotiate with them. The British negotiated with the Jewish nationalist movement in the 1930's even though they were arguably even more violent and racist than today's Arab nationalist movement.

As far as actions go, Hamas been willing to enter talks for an end to violence. It's Israel that's consistently rejected their offers. I won't go through the full documentary record here, but you can read some of it from an earlier post of mine (second from the top), with sources.

I'm pretty much where you're at Gum. The Democrats are the liberal party in name only. Actually, looking back at the recent history of the dems, you can see that Obama is hardly the first to do things like this. Just look at what Bill Clinton did. He killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children with brutal economic sanctions (he also bombed them with Operation Desert Fox, etc). He bombed the former Yugoslavia; an act that was completely unnecessary and led to an ethnic cleansing killing thousands of people. He bombed a Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory responsible for producing 50% of the poor African country's medicine (again, resulting in the deaths of thousands). And there's more, but theres no point in getting into it.

He didn't do us any favors at home either. He destroyed welfare with the Orwellianly titled "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act." In terms of policy, it's hard to think of anything he ever did to advance a liberal agenda. It's all just appalling. Our country desperately needs a real left-wing party.

At 12/2/10 11:50 AM, SolInvictus wrote: Hamas saying they'll actually be democratic (for a little bit at least)?

It's of little relevance. It's always been understood that any real settlement will have to be ratified by the Palestinian people. The problem is, and has been, that Israel is unwilling to support any resolution to the conflict that includes reasonable provisions for the Palestinians. For example: Israel continues to block a two state solution based on the pre-1967 borders, despite a tremendous international consensus that a two state settlement is the best solution to the conflict.

Until Israel is willing to be cooperative, there's nothing to vote on.

At 12/1/10 05:13 PM, adrshepard wrote: That is one explanation.

It's the only conclusion we can reasonably come to. Israel hasn't provided any evidence for their claims, and thus there's no reason to believe them. In fact, given Israel's tremendous record of lies, it would be foolish to believe them unless they can produce something more substantive.

I do agree with you about the PR part though. It is very bad for PR to keep innocent people in prison.

:Compared to all the crazy shit you say and believe, I'm a fountain of credibility.

You're cute. I can back all of my claims with evidence, from credible independent sources. Something that you seem to have trouble with.

At 11/25/10 12:29 AM, adrshepard wrote: http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/06/in tel-specific-flotilla-passangers-linked-

to-al-qaeda-hamas-and-other-terror-organ izations-6-june-2010/

I've personally met Ken O'Keefe and thus happen to know that all of these people were released from their Israeli prison precisely because Israel was completely incapable of providing any evidence of their outlandish claims. But please, keep citing the proven liars as your sole source. It does wonders for your credibility.