155 replies to this topic

[Black Red Devil]

and then, on 02 December 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

The part you didn't highlight is the escape clause they use to continue the funding regardless what the Palestinians do:  
The Secretary of State may
waive this restriction for national security reasons by filing a waiver detailing
how “the continuation of assistance would assist in furthering Middle East
peace"Has the current admin ever stopped or even cut aid to the Palestinians?  I think they cut it in  a minor way after some event but I can't recall what it was.

LOL. Is this a fabrication of your own mind or do you have a link?  The reason Israel and the US discriminates and oppresses the Palestinians is because of so called "Security reasons"  So I wouldn't be expecting any waivers in the near future

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 02 December 2012 - 11:00 AM.

[and then]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 02 December 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

LOL. Is this a fabrication of your own mind or do you have a link?  The reason Israel and the US discriminates and oppresses the Palestinians is because of so called "Security reasons"  So I wouldn't be expecting any waivers in the near future

Maybe I misunderstood.  Can you cite reductions in aid to the Palestinians by the US?  Or for that matter, by Israel?  Threats are made to do so but even Israel always relents under pressure and hands over tax revenues.  The Palestinians enjoy one of the longest, most stable welfare systems available on the planet.  Yes, they live in deplorable conditions and no I don't think they are treated fairly by Israel BUT they are also held down by the Arab governments in the region as well.  The children who eat at the UN's table are now 3rd generation welfare recipients.  There is a great deal of gray area in this dilemma and room for blame on many parties - not least of which are the Palestinians themselves, IMO.

[Black Red Devil]

and then, on 02 December 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Maybe I misunderstood.  Can you cite reductions in aid to the Palestinians by the US?  Or for that matter, by Israel?  Threats are made to do so but even Israel always relents under pressure and hands over tax revenues.  The Palestinians enjoy one of the longest, most stable welfare systems available on the planet.  Yes, they live in deplorable conditions and no I don't think they are treated fairly by Israel BUT they are also held down by the Arab governments in the region as well.  The children who eat at the UN's table are now 3rd generation welfare recipients.  There is a great deal of gray area in this dilemma and room for blame on many parties - not least of which are the Palestinians themselves, IMO.

Try to keep up....The purpose of the Palestinian aid link was to show that NO money from the US was going towards rockets and bombs.

[and then]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 02 December 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Try to keep up....The purpose of the Palestinian aid link was to show that NO money from the US was going towards rockets and bombs.

My misunderstanding then.  I think it matters little though.  If they have a limited income and some must be spent to keep their people alive and we provide it then they have more to spend on their toys from others.  Considering that they are already rearming via Iran and Sudan I'd say they have quite enough suppliers for the tools of war.  Israel should have made the restocking a bigger job by pounding their stocks a little longer.  But there's always next round, I guess.

[MichaelW]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 02 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

But, the US does provide Israel with a staggering $2.6 billion per year on average, two-thirds of which goes towards military assistance and they have been doing so since 1971.  At the top of page 28

No wonder Ron Paul is freaking out.....

$2.6 billion? A year? On average? Peanuts. The IAF in 2011 would pay US$144.7 million per aircraft when it receives 19 of the new F-35 stealth fighters. That's $2.7 billion alone. And Israel has the option of purchasing more than 55 of the aircraft. The annual budget alone of the IDF is US$14.5 billion.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 02 December 2012 - 09:25 PM, said:

$2.6 billion? A year? On average? Peanuts. The IAF in 2011 would pay US$144.7 million per aircraft when it receives 19 of the new F-35 stealth fighters. That's $2.7 billion alone. And Israel has the option of purchasing more than 55 of the aircraft. The annual budget alone of the IDF is US$14.5 billion.

Such opinions from the guy who pays zero (the real peanut).

The aggregate cost of our foreign policy is insidious.   Read the 9/11 Commission report.  The authors who are the foremost experts admit the war in Iraq was coming to the aid of our "friend", Israel.    Peanuts, my foot.

[Yamato]

and then, on 02 December 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

The part you didn't highlight is the escape clause they use to continue the funding regardless what the Palestinians do:  
The Secretary of State may
waive this restriction for national security reasons by filing a waiver detailing
how “the continuation of assistance would assist in furthering Middle East
peace"Has the current admin ever stopped or even cut aid to the Palestinians?  I think they cut it in  a minor way after some event but I can't recall what it was.

The Palestinians should receive zero aid, as should Israel.   What part of "no foreign aid period" do people not understand?   People simply can't handle a single standard (e.g. a principle).  There's that word again.

[and then]

Yamato, on 03 December 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

The Palestinians should receive zero aid, as should Israel.   What part of "no foreign aid period" do people not understand?   People simply can't handle a single standard (e.g. a principle).  There's that word again.

A noble sentiment, like much of what Paul stood for.  Just not practical in our current reality.

[acidhead]

and then, on 03 December 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

A noble sentiment, like much of what Paul stood for.  Just not practical in our current reality.

"our"?

count me out dude

[Yamato]

and then, on 01 December 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

Not true, Coffey.  Not everything is about the M.E. for me - just most   My opinions on RP are well thought out.  I'm not a hater where he is concerned, I just consider myself a realist on the chances of his movement.  THAT many earnest and committed citizens should not be just ignored and marginalized, but neither can they expect to be given the keys unless they can convince enough others in the validity of his WHOLE plan.

Our emotions have nothing to do with it.  We can all feel whatever we want about Ron Paul and it won't change a thing.  Ron Paul is going to be right for everyone, love him, hate him, or something in between.  The game is coming to an end because we can't afford to pay for it anymore.  The only question remaining is how long do you want to delay the inevitable and how painful do you want the end of this game to be?   I hope we don't have to stoop down into yet another protracted discussion about debt and deficit and fiscal responsibility but that's repetitively necessary when people expose their inner-Statist.  

That's the real reason people can't agree with Ron Paul.   They want the gobmint to make the world go around for always-another group of special people they want someone else's money to pay for.   That's not the bureau's job, that's your job.  Cough up your own $$ for whatever dirt you find worth paying for.  Don't tread on me.

[acidhead]

Sound money would be a start... say what you want but you know it's true.

[and then]

All I'm saying is that if Mr Paul were the Superman his followers considered him to be, he would be actively building his new party now while he still has the money and energy left from the campaign.  And if they are as committed as they seemed to be in the Spring and Summer then they could be positioning themselves for the absolute FUROR that is coming over the next months as Obama's same old, same old begins to stick in the voter's throats.  NOW is the time when his movement could gain by leaps and bounds....so where are they?

[Yamato]

and then, on 03 December 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

All I'm saying is that if Mr Paul were the Superman his followers considered him to be, he would be actively building his new party now while he still has the money and energy left from the campaign.  And if they are as committed as they seemed to be in the Spring and Summer then they could be positioning themselves for the absolute FUROR that is coming over the next months as Obama's same old, same old begins to stick in the voter's throats.  NOW is the time when his movement could gain by leaps and bounds....so where are they?

The gimme gimme generation the Boomers turned out to be (who are still the heart of the voting block) aren't interested in cutting spending whether democrat or republican.  They're interested in punting the can down the road as long as possible.   This fiscal cliff was the compromise that Congress made that allowed them to raise the debt ceiling.   Since they raised the debt ceiling, we got the fiscal cliff (higher taxes + spending cuts) and now that we've once again caught up with the can they kicked, Congress is back to whining about what they did and didn't do.

This fluff election was nothing more than a choice between a right wing spender vs. a left wing spender and the differences are negligible when you count the big ticket items we're blowing our dough on. They both like war, they both like entitlements, they both worship Israel and insist on foreign welfare.  Coke or Pepsi.   My signature video.   Neither party knows the meaning of spending cuts but both parties love to talk about it like they do.

Ron Paul is retiring, he's only as politically popular as the votes he received.  It will only be politically popular to cut spending when we face bankruptcy we can no longer delay.  That's not the same-old thing sticking in a throat, that's an economic depression.  So Congress is busy preparing another punt on 1st and 10 as we speak; once again doing what is politically popular.   The media has blabbed up the so-called fiscal cliff like it's a bad thing.  And as always, the bureaucrats are busy convincing the people that it's the other side of he aisle's fault, to successfully continue their bipartisan scheme of mass-irresponsibility.

[WoIverine]

Yamato, on 03 December 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

The Palestinians should receive zero aid, as should Israel.   What part of "no foreign aid period" do people not understand?   People simply can't handle a single standard (e.g. a principle).  There's that word again.

Better believe that if foreign aid started cutting into people's welfare and food stamps, they would be up in arms and rally for a "change". Eventually, it just might.

Edited by WoIverine, 03 December 2012 - 08:13 PM.

[preacherman76]

and then, on 03 December 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

All I'm saying is that if Mr Paul were the Superman his followers considered him to be, he would be actively building his new party now while he still has the money and energy left from the campaign.  And if they are as committed as they seemed to be in the Spring and Summer then they could be positioning themselves for the absolute FUROR that is coming over the next months as Obama's same old, same old begins to stick in the voter's throats.  NOW is the time when his movement could gain by leaps and bounds....so where are they?

If he were 10 year younger I think thats exactly what would be happening.