Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This war's main problem is that it is misguided - the solution does not solve the problem. Like the US in Vietnam Israel will find out that air power is of little use against an irregular and scattered army using guerrilla tactics. It just doesn't work.

That the Lebanese are Palestinian? I don't get it.

If you were hear to read the posts of other users rather than to parrot your own "scholarly" opinion, you'd know that your arguments had already been represented.

Actually it hadn't. I was turning your argument around to a focus on social class and economic well-being because it amused me (since it looks like I'm agreeing with you, but I'm actually slipping in something you would probably completely disagree with.) Rarely are the media and government understood in a way that sees them as structures they are seen as more of system of structuration of the individual. The difference is that the focus is not on the media, but how the media affects the individual. It is nowhere near as powerful as economic structuralist thinking.

At most your argument could be described as post-material post-structuralist (which is a long fucking way from the beginnings of the theory.) Mostly I would describe it as moralist whinging, with its analytical focus still on the individual.

As a matter of fact, your "scholarly" opinion is already a common theory in American academia.

No, it's not. It used to have some standing before the behavioural revolution in the 1950s and before the continual erosion of the US's left wing meant that "[you] are all liberals now". Your moralist whinging is a common theory in the US, but the people who do it I wouldn't describe as academics.

All you did in your post was agree with me, say something about class, and then say, "Americans commonly leave this argument out. Hoy hoy hoy, I'm teh scholar." You can't even be agree with me without being a prick.

Well I can't help being a prick, such is my nature. But I rarely agree with you.......like in this case. And hey, the more I mention it perhaps the quicker it will dawn on you guys that you have a severely stunted political spectrum.

Just thought I'd add that since you seemed to be missing a major part of a proper discussion. Often seems to be the case in the US.

Could you be anymore arrogant?

Yeah, sure. I could try. I mean, I could make a big deal about being properly acquainted with the proper material on this subject, but I didn't. As people don't tend to like it. What I thought I'd do was add a two cents little bit of discussion because this debate was lacking a huge area of scholarship. One notoriously ignored by US scholars, thinkers and its general public. It doesn't tend to fit with US individualist thinking - that's why stuff like "Political Science", rational choice theory and agency-based theories of democratisation have originated there.

But hey, if you want to call advanced knowledge of something that is not summarily disclosed in a paragraph's worth of text arrogance, go ahead. It doesn't bother me. Hell, I barely even come here anymore.

Politics can suck sometimes, but at least I know I can rant here about it <3

http://news.bbc.co.u..snight25/4182569.stm

Watch it, it's long but it's really quite funny.

Besides reducing the volume of bombings, is there any way Israel could save more civilian lives and still bomb the targets? I don't see what else they could be doing.

If Israel does not bomb, they will instead be bombed more themselves.

How about using soldiers instead of air power? Just a thought.

are you listening to what you are saying??
"Hezbollah may have"?.. what do you mean "may have"!?

It's a phrase. Clearly your grasp of the English language is such that you can't understand these things.

they kidnapped soldiers.
Without provocation.

I think Hezbollah have got plenty of incidents that they would deem provocation. Hezbollah did not start the war because they kidnapped two soldiers. You assume that the kidnapping of two soldiers justifies a full scale invasion of another country, when it clearly does not. This was an independent group working within Lebanon, not the Lebanese state (which is the thing that has been attacked.)

Let's be honest with ourselves: in this country we put an uncommonly high level of responsibility on the parent for the outcome of the kid and we forget societal influences like media, substances, and friends that play an equally large role in the social development of a child.

Damn right. People tend to put too much focus on analysis centering around the individual, when structual factors, including the media, the government and, most importantly, social class and economic well being, are very important. Now lets not get confused here and deny individual free will and say everything is determined by social class. However, we must also recognise that poverty causes crime, drug abuse, obesity and, quite often, poor parenting.

Just thought I'd add that since you seemed to be missing a major part of a proper discussion. Often seems to be the case in the US.

Lets throw this one out: If Hezbollah turned over those soldiers and stopped crapping out Katusha rockets from Lebanon this war would have been over a long time ago.

You know what I find funny: If Hezbollah dropped their arms this conflict would be over. If Israel dropped their arms there wouldn't be a country left.

Eeeer.....no. That's not the case at all. Hezbollah clearly doesn't have the ability to mount a full-scale land attack on Israel to destroy them and actually only started firing rockets after the Israelis invaded. Hezbollah may have kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, but this war was started by Israel. And only Israel can end it.

That would be sad if you were still on newgrounds at 30.

Hell even 20 is kind of pushing it for me.

Seconded.

Thirded.

Possibly the reason why I mostly look at the posts instead of answering them.

As for the main topic, NG Politics Forums are for 13-17 year olds to discuss politics because practically no where else caters for them. This is one of the best learning grounds for anyone involved in politics because it's a lot of bullshit and that's what you need when studying politics - to see through bullshit. Plus you don't need immense amounts of knowledge to argue, you can just do research on the internet (which increases your knowledge base.)

Remember: everyone at one time in their life was a newb.

It is often the case that people who claim things about political correctness fail to notice important points. Let's go through a few of the examples, eh?

1. Misguided Criminals for Terrorist

This is not politically correct behaviour, this is an attempt to stear clear of the connotations of the word "terrorist" to facilitate better understanding. It is a refusal to use the standard media frame which promotes a singular understanding of the events.

2. Intrinsic Aptitude

A suggestion by one person.....wow. Political correctness is taking over the world.

5. Out of the Mainstream when used to describe the ideology of any political opponent

Political baiting, I fail to see why this made the list.

6. Deferred Success as a euphemism for the word fail.

A considered proposal, not an actual policy.

7. Womyn for Women to distance the word from man.

This is a feminist thing and has been around for many many years.

9. "God Rest Ye Merry Persons" for "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen"

Wow, the Anglican Church of Wales....I'm sure that's a huge organisation.

For those of you that have missed my point it is this : the "political correctness" you rave about barely exists. This are a few disparate examples, not sourced at all well and not all from 2005. The teacher one is the best, they considered a proposal - that's all. How many people does it take to make a proposal?

And I love how everyone's crticisizing the morality of the Israeli government. News Flash! The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists hardly ever so much as attempt to attack a military target. Neither side is on any sort of moral high ground, or, if they are, they're both so far in the pit of attrition that it doesn't even fucking matter.

They did attack military targets....................and got war declared on themselves. You can kinda see why they would want to attack civilians if this is what happens when they attack the military.

What does it mean for a striker to get caught in a trap?

Knowing far far more about football than most on these boards I feel it is my duty to tell you that it is called an offside trap, not just a trap (as in someone could have just left a bear trap on the pitch.) As for your explaination...

:-it means that the defenders all ran past the striker causing him to be offsides

No, it means the defenders moved their line forward just before the ball is played causing one or more players to be in an offside position (where the ball is played forward to a player who is not in front of two or more defensive players (including the goalkeeper)), for which he is called offside - not sides.

One more note on football
Go Torquay!

For example, if you go and kill a little child, does you still deserve the rights of that of a normal citizen?

Tell me oh great one, is it logical if they do deserve the same rights?

Are we talking about in the US where everyone is granted certain inalienable rights?

I find it very interesting that when there is a bomb attack that harms civilians people decry the lack of humanity on the part of the aggressors and claim that this justifies severe reprisals. When these same groups follow the "rules of war" and aim their attacks at military targets/soldiers it is considered an act of war and severe reprisals follow. It seems to me that the use of both these arguments requires hypocrisy and is pretty much use apologism for Israel's disgusting record.

It's not even that big of a deal. You show someone your ID and you're done with it.

That's something everyone over drinking age realises and everyone under fails to.

I've always wondered if people who quote scientists on global warming (on either side of the debate) have heard of this http://en.wikipedia...i/Milgram_experiment
.

To be honest, I would not stake the future of the human race on the view that it's easier to do nothing.

We spend over a trillion dollars on old people and poor people, but we can't develop anti-ied tech?

People die in wars. Invincibility is a long fucking way off and not really a good idea anyhow.

If you declare war on random people, you're going to get fucked now and then.

Shut the fuck up and let me watch the mtv movie awards.

That's the problem with you fucking yanks and your sports. Can't watch anything that doesn't break every few minutes for adverts. Fucking superbowl.

THE WORLD FUCKING CUP!

Oh yeah. First time in 6 years that there's been a footie tournament while I don't have exams (finished my Uni exams on monday.) I plan on bumming out for the next few weeks - no work, just drink and footie. Now I know most of you are Americans and know less about football then hummingbirds know about brick laying, but it's the World Cup and the USA is the 4th best country in the world! *snigger*

JT rules.

Then why is it almost entirely men who rape people?

Because we can.

Does this survey have an underlying hypothesis?

This are two arguments I come across a lot....and they're pretty much entirely wrong.

I'm not advocating capitalism because it is what we always have done, i like it because it is a system that rewards people based on themselves and what the deserve through work. Unlike socialism where a surgeon is economicly equal to a guy who pulls up weeds .

How do people come to deserve things through work? Through effort? Because capitalism does not reward "effort" - a person pulling weeds could put as much effort into his work as a surgeon. Or is it through their skills and abilities? In which case people are being rewarded for something they could not be said to be responsible for. Skills and abilities come through a mixture of genetics (which is just good luck and clearly something you can't be responsible for), education (the education available to you, especially in the US, is dependant upon how much money you parents have) and early socialisation (which forms your personality, including such things as an ability to concentrate and a desire to work.)

Are you suggesting that a system that rewards people based on luck is correct?

I posted in this thread because I know when you get older and go to university you too may one day study economics and look back on these thoughts and realise a mostly free market economy is the most reasonable answer. Small things, like resource allocation by demand means that the workforce is putting out what the population needs and wants in as real time as possible instead of the government having control.

It's a shame schools don't teach economics well enough that people think capitialism is wrong or bad.

It's a shame that schools don't teach economics well enough that people are unable to recognise that it is an imperfect science. All of economics requires assumptions as premises for analysis and this subsequently influence the analysis. The inability of Economists to recognise this has always been their weakest point. People may talk about "economic fact" but it is not fact as facts are independent of shakely grounded analysis. For an example of this difference, it is a fact that a atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. It is not a fact that the US needed to drop a atomic bomb on Nagasaki to get Japan to surrender. Do you see the difference between analysis and fact? Analysis can be argued with, as can the whole of economics.

I saw a man holding a sign "I'm Illegal not a criminial". How does that work? You break the first law of the country that you want to come to, and then expect them to welcome you with open arms. To take it a step further, these people are likely to be the MOST criminal in nature. Think about it - when someone robs a bank or steals a car it makes them seem more likely to commit another crime.

Welcome to elementary logic 101, today we will be studying the slippery slope fallacy.

............. That's how Communism works in Reality

No, that was how Communism did work in reality, it does not logically follow that it has to work like that in every case. Surely, having been born in Russia, you realise the important historical factors and figures that shaped the regime?

Why are proponents of a flat tax assuming that a progressive tax has to be complicated? It seems to be confusing theoretical discussions with factual discussions. The level of taxation can be cut down (certinaly in the UK) if loopholes which allow super-rich bastards to avoid taxation were closed.

Stable, human-rights respecting democracies: The US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Israel, that sort.

Human Rights, you say?
http://web.amnesty.o..?open&of=ENG-313
http://web.amnesty.o..ages/isr-index_2-eng

http://web.amnesty.o..-220206-features-eng

Quick question: Who should be allowed to have nukes?

I love the fact that that's the best you could come up with to counter my argument.

That's not a fact, that's an assumption based on two flawed premises. Firstly you assumed I was trying to counter your argument when I would never do such a thing as to despoil the definition of an argument. Secondly you assumed that was the best I could come up with, something patently not so. It's not even that I vaguely care about this subject as I'm not a liberal.

I love it when people confuse truth with their own opinion.