111–120 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
How should this be achieved without war and a genocide-like event? What are people that are in favor of Anti-Zionism specifically hoping for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Anti-Zionism isn't criticism of Israel "opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-Zionism >Its eliminationist rhetoric and plainly bigoted. There are some who think Israel shouldn't exist others who think their government is wrong. If a person thinks all Israelis should be murdered then that's wrong. This is not the whole representation of Anti…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trouble is that Israel-Palestine is a proxy war with spiritual implications. Israel is composed of people who just went through a legitimate holocaust and genocide themselves. Therefore it seems logical to most people that they'd be ready and willing to exact vengeance in the measure it was dished out to them. Furthermore, their Tanakh (our Old Testament) details the battles between the Children of Israel and the…
[flagged]
Before World War II, the land was British Mandate Palestine, which was previously part of the Ottoman Empire. It was a land with a mixed population and growing nationalist movements among both Jews and Arabs.
Balfour Declaration 1917
“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object..."
Under League of Nations, there was no explicit agreement that Jewish people could only come if they never formed a state.
1920s-30s more immigration occurred and clearly Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state.
In 1939, before Holocaust, Britain severely limited Jewish immigration stating in a White Paper, “Palestine would not become a Jewish state”. It limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 over 5 years.
Fast forward to 1947 post WW2, Britain became increasingly concerned about tensions between Arabs and Jews. There became a strong demand for a Jewish state amongst Zionists it was referred to the United Nations in 1947.
UN partition plan divided Palestine into three parts. Jews accepted even though it had compromises and Palestinians rejected.
War broke out and in 1948, several Arab states attacked. After the Arab-Israeli War, Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt took Gaza, Israel expanded its borders. No Palestinian state was created.
Palestine identity started getting created in the 20th century. It had been known as Palestine for millennia and ruled by various empires over hundreds of years.
“ Palestinians – as well as other Levantine people – are primarily descended from ancient Levantines who inhabited what is today Israel and Palestine, at least 3700 years ago”
It’s complicated and there is a lot of nuance. Many cultural groups trace their origins there including Jews who consider themselves descendants of ancient Israelites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, if you assume competency and hard work from the administration involved. Seriously, many of the cuts reference returning power to the states, does that mean it will be returned in its entirety as block grants, or as non-corporate tax cuts? Based on past performance I doubt they'll accomplish either yet the money and programs and federal jobs will still be gone. Federal jobs many considered to be good jobs and…
Block grants are bad. I would prefer non-corporate tax cuts focusing on the middle class. This would also help us balance the federal budget. I like national parks. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. Most of the federal budget does not go to national parks. I also live in a state that has really good state parks. Well-run, widely available, well-maintained. Hopefully we can have states help…
You like national parks and see no problem with funding it with taxes. But then why is it bad when the rest of us like other things that the federal government does? Elsewhere you talk about federalism concerns but you completely ignore them here. Why is that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Defense was about 12% of last year's spending. I think we should cut the other 88% a lot. It's not a contradiction to believe in cutting spending due to a fear of the deficit EXCEPT you make exceptions, like defense, which you provided an explanation to. However that means you can't use the general rule alone as the reason for cutting social programs (or better asked as) "Why not make an exception for social program…
Defense is existential and welfare is not. Defense is also an enumerated power of the feds and welfare is not. Defense must be handled at the national welfare and welfare need not be. My "general rule" is there is a pretty small list of things the feds should do. It is also a "general rule" that when you are worried about overspending you look at the bigger line items first. Primes are the prime contractors: boeing,…
The US spends vastly more on defense than any other nation on the planet. Why not spend 2x what we already spend? 10x? Surely at some point "we have a larger military spending than the 10 countries with the next highest military spending combined" is enough to mitigate the "existential threat."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I voted mostly against harris. I don't really like trump. I've voted against him in every primary I could. I voted libertarian in 2020 because I figured biden would lose. I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china. probably worse. Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care.
> I do not believe harris will be any better at containing china. But she would probably be better at keeping the US position in the world and with our allies in good standing; instead of selling it off for personal gain. > Trump is not particularly effective but he at least pretends to care. Good point, at least he pretends to care. I mean he is getting the US a "free" jet that will cost the american tax payer almos…
“Government contracted L3Harris Technologies to retrofit the Qatari jet with necessary modifications, aiming to have it operational by fall 2025. “ [1] https://www.ainvest.com/news/l3harris-steps-boeing-footsteps...
But why? Because Boeing has delayed the real Air Force One replacement until 2035. Trump wants it for the Trump Presidential Library when he leaves office which he can buy and have it retrofitted again. The same/similar thing done for Reagan in 2001.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they know what an endowment is, how they're used, what a 501(c)(3) nonprofit is, and very generally the tax rules around such nonprofits. I can provide links if you'd like to learn. I'm just on mobile right now and it's a pain. It would help, though, if you could describe in what way people should be bothered.
> what a 501(c)(3) nonprofit In the case of Harvard and many other institutions, it's a tax-dodge, and nothing more. Same thing with non-profit hospitals whose administrators pay themselves seven-figure salaries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, right. In that case, all non-profits are "tax dodges" using the literal interpretation of the words. But tax dodge usually implies something unsavory... Is the issue that you don't think that any university - or perhaps specifically Harvard? - should be granted non-profit status? If that’s the case, then I'm curious what you think about the same question for religion-affiliated universities and non-profit organ…
> all non-profits are "tax dodges" No, some of them operate like genuine non-profits by promoting some public good and compensate their executives only modestly. For example, the Salvation Army.
If our society lacks education we end up having people question the utility of 501(c)(3) status of universities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Block grants are bad. I would prefer non-corporate tax cuts focusing on the middle class. This would also help us balance the federal budget. I like national parks. They are one of the few things I don't mind paying taxes for. Most of the federal budget does not go to national parks. I also live in a state that has really good state parks. Well-run, widely available, well-maintained. Hopefully we can have states help…
Tax cuts would let us balance the budget? What? You like national parks and see no problem with funding it with taxes. But then why is it bad when the rest of us like other things that the federal government does? Elsewhere you talk about federalism concerns but you completely ignore them here. Why is that?
In other words it’s not commerce/elastic clause bullshit.
If you really care about the NPS and think it’s an overreach we could move management of parks back to states. I don’t strongly object to that.