On Federal Taxation in the United States

Nov 13, 2014 21:39:58 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 13, 2014 12:36:26 GMT ShivaTD said:

Try reading the actual history as oppose to the propaganda.

It was the Jewish Peoples Council (i.e. 'Jewish Agency' under the Mandate for Palestine), as representatives of the Jewish minority in Palestine, that rejected a "vote of the people" on the provisions of UNGA Resolution 181 and not the Arabs. The Supreme Muslim Council, the highest representative body of the Arabs and Christians in Palestine under the Mandate for Palestine, as well as the Arab League rejected the implementation of UNGA Resolution 181 because without a vote the "self-determination" of the People of Palestine would be denied. The Supreme Muslim Council and the Arab League rejected the fact that the People of Palestine were being denied the Right of Self-Determination and, in principle, the Arabs supported a popular vote on UNGA Resolution 181. 

Yes, the Arabs declared that they would intervene if the Jews unilaterally implemented UNGA Resolution 181 as that implementation would violate the Right of Self-Determination for ALL People living in Palestine. The Arabs all but begged the Jews not to unilaterally implement UNGA Resolutionn 181 without a popular vote as that would be in direct violation of the British Mandate for Palestine as well as the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations which the United Nations had adopted upon it's creation. The Israeli Declaration of Independence was literally a Declaration of War against the Arabs living in Palestine and the Arab League that supported their Rights under the Charter of the United Nations previously established by the League of Nations.

No, I didn't state or imply that Germany and Japan were not at war with the United States but that they did not represent a threat to the sovereignty of the United States. The sovereignty of a nation can only be violated by the physical occupation and over-throwing of the political institutions of a nation and neither Germany or Japan had the military capability of invading and over-throwing the US government. We could have won or lost WW II militarily but the United States would have endured unaltered as a nation based upon the US Constitution. Our national sovereignty would have remained intact as it was never threatened. 

During WW II the Germans did violate the national sovereignty of nations like France and Japan did violate the national sovereignty of nations like China and Korea but neither represented a military threat that could invade and conquer the United States.

Whether Germany and/or Japan could have "conquer[ed]" the US is really beside the point. The devastation at Pearl Harbor demonstrated the damage that could be done to the US.  Do you really believe that the US should simply allow itself to be attacked, just as long as the country might "endure...as a nation"?

What do you mean by the assertion that Germany violated "the national sovereignty of...Japan"?  Germany and Japan were allies--remember?

I cited Wikipedia as concerning the establishment of the state of Israel. Apparently, you view Wikipedia as mere "propaganda." And likewise any mainstream account of the matter...

My statement was that our "national sovereignty" was not at stake during WW II and not that we shouln't have defended ourselves from harm caused by the attacks of the Germans or Japanese. Our national sovereignty was not at stake during WW II and it is not at stake today. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't defend our territory from attacks or invasions by other nations.

To clarify my statement, "Germans (Germany) did violate the national sovereignty of nations like France." and "Japan did violate the national sovereignty of nations like China and Korea." and "Neither represented a military threat that could invade and conquer the United States (which would represent a threat to our national sovereignty)."

I was also citing Wikipedi although I paraphased my statement.

"Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

As Wikipedia notes the "Partition plan was not implemented" and any claims by the Israelis that Israel is founded upon UNGA Resolution 181 are false. As also noted the reason the Partition Plan proposed by UNGA 181 was not implemented was because "it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter."

Of interest is that I'm always learning and I didn't realize that the Arabs were also the representatives of all non-Jewish people living in Palestine which included the small minorities of Christians as well as other non-Jewish people. When was the last time you read of the Arab/Muslins supporting the Christians while the Israeli Jews opposed them? Obviously much has changed in the last 60 plus years when the Zionist Jews opposed Christianity and the Muslims were protecting it.   

Nov 14, 2014 20:54:03 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 14, 2014 14:29:47 GMT ShivaTD said:

My statement was that our "national sovereignty" was not at stake during WW II and not that we shouln't have defended ourselves from harm caused by the attacks of the Germans or Japanese. Our national sovereignty was not at stake during WW II and it is not at stake today. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't defend our territory from attacks or invasions by other nations.

To clarify my statement, "Germans (Germany) did violate the national sovereignty of nations like France." and "Japan did violate the national sovereignty of nations like China and Korea." and "Neither represented a military threat that could invade and conquer the United States (which would represent a threat to our national sovereignty)."

I was also citing Wikipedi although I paraphased my statement.

"Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

As Wikipedia notes the "Partition plan was not implemented" and any claims by the Israelis that Israel is founded upon UNGA Resolution 181 are false. As also noted the reason the Partition Plan proposed by UNGA 181 was not implemented was because "it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter."

Of interest is that I'm always learning and I didn't realize that the Arabs were also the representatives of all non-Jewish people living in Palestine which included the small minorities of Christians as well as other non-Jewish people. When was the last time you read of the Arab/Muslins supporting the Christians while the Israeli Jews opposed them? Obviously much has changed in the last 60 plus years when the Zionist Jews opposed Christianity and the Muslims were protecting it.   

I really do not know what Jews are "opposed [to] Christianity" nowadays. Perhaps a handful might be found--just as one could surely find a handful of fundamentalist Christians who believe that practicing Jews have made themselves blind to the truth of the Gospel, and are therefore condemned to an eternity in hell--but probably not very many, in either instance.

Why do you suppose that ISIS could not effectively destroy the US?  It would not require superior military power in order to accomplish the feat.  If it could induce widespread panic, disproportionate to the actual threat--which is, after all, the purpose of terrorism--it could effectively destroy our country, as we now know it.

Yes, "Arab leaders and governments rejected" Resolution 181." So what? That does not automatically mean that it did not go into effect. (I "rejected" Barack Obama--twice--at the polls; but he still became president, and was re-elected.)

Prior to the founding of Israel the Zionists opposed everyone that was non-Jewish in Palestine and that included the Christians. Do you think for one minute that if Christians were the majority living in Palestine in lieu of the Muslims that the acts of terrorism by the Zionists against the "Christians" would have been any less than what the Muslims faced? Do you think for one minute that the oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories would be any less if they were Christians as opposed to Muslin (were it not for the disenfranchisement of the US as a financial supporter of Israel)? The "Jewish Supremacy" of Zionism doesn't care who the "other person" is if they're not Jewish.

I would remind you that after 9/11 Americans became united against the threat. That unity was misused by our government but the unity existed nonetheless.  Far from being able to destroy America with acts of terrorism by ISIS it would only result in a greater unification of America were it to carry out terrorist acts in the United States. Americans are typically at our best when faced with adversity. The only problem is that the politicans often abuse this unity for their own nefarious purposes and agendas.

Not even the Jewish People voted for UNGA 181 and it's conditions were never implemented by the Zionist State of Israel. Jerusalem, for example, was not established as politically independent city in 1948 as half of it was occupied by the Zionists with no intention whatsoever of ever establishing it as in politically independent city. Today, juxtaposed to the provisions of UNGA 181, Israel is literally trying to take-over all of Jerusalem with it's illegal occupation of E Jerusalem.  The "partition" of Palestine in accordance with UNGA 181 was never implimented and, in fact, virtually none of the provision of UNGA 181 were ever implemented in 1948.  

Nov 14, 2014 20:54:03 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 14, 2014 14:29:47 GMT ShivaTD said:

My statement was that our "national sovereignty" was not at stake during WW II and not that we shouln't have defended ourselves from harm caused by the attacks of the Germans or Japanese. Our national sovereignty was not at stake during WW II and it is not at stake today. That doesn't imply that we shouldn't defend our territory from attacks or invasions by other nations.

To clarify my statement, "Germans (Germany) did violate the national sovereignty of nations like France." and "Japan did violate the national sovereignty of nations like China and Korea." and "Neither represented a military threat that could invade and conquer the United States (which would represent a threat to our national sovereignty)."

I was also citing Wikipedi although I paraphased my statement.

"Arab leaders and governments rejected the plan of partition in the resolution[7] and indicated an unwillingness to accept any form of territorial division.[8] Their reason was that it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny.[6][9]

Immediately after adoption of the Resolution by the General Assembly, the civil war broke out.[10] The partition plan was not implemented."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

As Wikipedia notes the "Partition plan was not implemented" and any claims by the Israelis that Israel is founded upon UNGA Resolution 181 are false. As also noted the reason the Partition Plan proposed by UNGA 181 was not implemented was because "it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter."

Of interest is that I'm always learning and I didn't realize that the Arabs were also the representatives of all non-Jewish people living in Palestine which included the small minorities of Christians as well as other non-Jewish people. When was the last time you read of the Arab/Muslins supporting the Christians while the Israeli Jews opposed them? Obviously much has changed in the last 60 plus years when the Zionist Jews opposed Christianity and the Muslims were protecting it.   

I really do not know what Jews are "opposed [to] Christianity" nowadays. Perhaps a handful might be found--just as one could surely find a handful of fundamentalist Christians who believe that practicing Jews have made themselves blind to the truth of the Gospel, and are therefore condemned to an eternity in hell--but probably not very many, in either instance.

Why do you suppose that ISIS could not effectively destroy the US?  It would not require superior military power in order to accomplish the feat.  If it could induce widespread panic, disproportionate to the actual threat--which is, after all, the purpose of terrorism--it could effectively destroy our country, as we now know it.

Yes, "Arab leaders and governments rejected" Resolution 181." So what? That does not automatically mean that it did not go into effect. (I "rejected" Barack Obama--twice--at the polls; but he still became president, and was re-elected.)

Prior to the founding of Israel the Zionists opposed everyone that was non-Jewish in Palestine and that included the Christians. Do you think for one minute that if Christians were the majority living in Palestine in lieu of the Muslims that the acts of terrorism by the Zionists against the "Christians" would have been any less than what the Muslims faced? Do you think for one minute that the oppression of the Palestinians in the occupied territories would be any less if they were Christians as opposed to Muslin (were it not for the disenfranchisement of the US as a financial supporter of Israel)? The "Jewish Supremacy" of Zionism doesn't care who the "other person" is if they're not Jewish.

I would remind you that after 9/11 Americans became united against the threat. That unity was misused by our government but the unity existed nonetheless.  Far from being able to destroy America with acts of terrorism by ISIS it would only result in a greater unification of America were it to carry out terrorist acts in the United States. Americans are typically at our best when faced with adversity. The only problem is that the politicans often abuse this unity for their own nefarious purposes and agendas.

Not even the Jewish People voted for UNGA 181 and it's conditions were never implemented by the Zionist State of Israel. Jerusalem, for example, was not established as politically independent city in 1948 as half of it was occupied by the Zionists with no intention whatsoever of ever establishing it as in politically independent city. Today, juxtaposed to the provisions of UNGA 181, Israel is literally trying to take-over all of Jerusalem with it's illegal occupation of E Jerusalem.  The "partition" of Palestine in accordance with UNGA 181 was never implimented and, in fact, virtually none of the provision of UNGA 181 were ever implemented in 1948.  

Nov 15, 2014 23:10:29 GMT pjohns1873 said:

For openers, I do not recognize the existence of an entity known as "Palestine." It is Israel.  To refer to it as anything else is hopelessly tendentious.  And inaccurate.

The Jews' wanting their own homeland, in the wake of the Holocaust, is hardly tantamount to a doctrine of "Jewish supremacy," as you have implied.

To claim, as you do, that widespread terrorism in America would lead to "a greater unification" of the country, in opposition to terrorism, is quixotic in the extreme. It would, in fact, likely lead to panic; which is the entire purpose of terrorism.

Do you actually deny that Palestine was created as a territorial-political entity under the British Mandate? Seriously? Palestine today is what's left of that territorial-political entity after the usurption of the Rights of All Palestinians by the Zionist Jews in 1948. It is recognized throughout the world, including  formally by the United States, as all of the territory that wasn't under the control of Israeli government prior to the 6-Day war in 1967. Of note not a part of Palestine is the Golan Heights that is a part of territorial-political entity of Syria established under the French Mandate at the end of WW I but that was also illegally occupied by Israel during the 6-Day war in 1967.

It's hard for me to believe that you refuse to accept the historical establishment of the State of Palestine by the British at the end of WW I when it divided it's "Mandatory" of the former Turkish Empire into Trans-Jordan and Palestine.

Let me ask you a question regarding "Jewish Supremacy" in Israel. It is projected that by about 2045 the Muslims are going to become the majority of citizens of Israel. In effect Israel will no longer be a Jewish nation when that occurs. Are the Jews going to attempt to maintain control of the Israeli government based upon "Jewish supremacy in government" or are they going to just accept that Israel is no longer a Jewish nation because Muslims, based upon the vote, will control Israel?

You know we face the same problem that Israel faces based upon projected population growth for minorities. By 2050 it is estimated that about 55% of Americans are going to be minorities predominately Hispanic or Asian in the United States. The "WASP" control of our government is going to disappear based upon the Right to Vote of the minorities. The Republican Party, which is predominately a party of WASP males, knows this is happening and is doing everything possible to prevent the increase in the minority demographics driven by immigration moreso than any other single factor. That's really the only reason why Republicans in Congress today oppose "amnesty and a path to citizenship" for the estimated 11-12 million "illegal" permanent residents in the United States. They want to do everything possible to prevent these predominately Hispanic people from becoming US citizens in the future. 

www.census.gov/population/projections/files/analytical-document09.pdf

Israel is doing exactly the same thing in it's immigration policies. While virtually any "Jew" can freely immigrate to Israel (just like we'll allow virtually any white European to immigrate to the US) all other immigration to Israel is highly restricted. Not even those who's families lived in "Israel" prior to 1948 are allowed to return to their "homeland" by Israel if they happen to be an Arab Muslim.

The fact is that historic WASP Male Supremacy in the United States and Jewish Supremacy in Israel are both doomed eventually based upon the projections of demograhic changes in the future. With nefarious laws those changed can be delayed but the changes in demographics cannot be stopped.     

There will aways be those that are afraid so long as we have politicans that engage in fearmongering. The Republican Party is unquestionably the masters of fearmongering in the United States. Remember that right before the 2004 election the GOP adminstration of former President Bush upgraded the "terrorits alert level" to orange to scare Americans into re-electing Bush? As we know today there was no reason for increasing the "terrorist alert level" based upon evidence of a potential terrorist attack and no attack ever occurred and no planned attack was ever uncovered. It was a political exercise in fearmongering by the GOP to re-elect the president and nothing more.

Nov 20, 2014 18:46:05 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 20, 2014 18:46:05 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I really do not wish to debate ancient history; and the 2004 presidential election is precisely that. (It is a bit like debating the "hanging chads" in Florida in 2000.)

And I also do not wish to go back about 100 years, to the "British Mandate" and the "French Mandate," in order to establish what constitutes that small parcel of land in the Middle East.

If the demographic projections are correct--and that is a very big "if"--Israel will have to deal with that in the future. (There is, however, no real comparison to the "historic WASP male supremacy in the United States," as the latter is clearly indefensible; whereas Jewish unity--not really "supremacy"--is based upon the millenia-long persecution of the Jewish people, culminating in the Holocaust.)   

It is somewhat contradictory when you don't want to refer to history, even going so far as to state that 2004 is no longer relevant but then rely on history predating the creation of Israel in your arguments. Palestine existed as a territorial/political entity until 1948 and is not 100 year old history yet. It existed as a territorial/political entity after the Holocaust that you reference as being the casus belli for the war by the Zionists against the people of Palestine in 1948 and presumably in 1967 as well.

Historically demographic propections are relatively accurate while the actual date that those changes might occur may vary slightly the changes eventually occur. So the question is "when" those changes occur what will the Zionists do?

While the Zionists resort to forced evictions, perhaps using terrorism and murder like they did leading up the the creation of Israel like Nazi Germany did prior to WW II, or will they go as far as the Nazis did after 1942 and create extermination camps for the Arabs? I've read the opinions of Israeli Zionists of today on other forums that are already advocating that all of the Arabs should be driven from their homes in Palestine and forced to leave by Israeli military force (and murder if need be). These are very scary people IMHO and they're out there today.    

Nov 21, 2014 19:02:57 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 21, 2014 12:28:59 GMT ShivaTD said:

It is somewhat contradictory when you don't want to refer to history, even going so far as to state that 2004 is no longer relevant but then rely on history predating the creation of Israel in your arguments. Palestine existed as a territorial/political entity until 1948 and is not 100 year old history yet. It existed as a territorial/political entity after the Holocaust that you reference as being the casus belli for the war by the Zionists against the people of Palestine in 1948 and presumably in 1967 as well.

Historically demographic propections are relatively accurate while the actual date that those changes might occur may vary slightly the changes eventually occur. So the question is "when" those changes occur what will the Zionists do?

While the Zionists resort to forced evictions, perhaps using terrorism and murder like they did leading up the the creation of Israel like Nazi Germany did prior to WW II, or will they go as far as the Nazis did after 1942 and create extermination camps for the Arabs? I've read the opinions of Israeli Zionists of today on other forums that are already advocating that all of the Arabs should be driven from their homes in Palestine and forced to leave by Israeli military force (and murder if need be). These are very scary people IMHO and they're out there today.    

As I have noted previously, when--and if--the Palestinian population surpassed the Jewish population in Israel, that will be a problem for the Israelis to deal with then.  (Despite what a few members of the fringe may suggest, the overwhelming majority do not support the horrific idea of "extermination camps."  You really should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that they do.)

No, not everything that happened in 2004 (or even much earlier than that) is "no longer relevant." But the presidential election of 2004 is certainly no longer relevant.  Do you suppose that it might (somehow) be overturned, and John Kerry made president?   

The problem of the Zionist Israelis using force and coercion to purge Arabs from portions of the occupied territories today is a problem that needs to be addressed today just like the Nazi government of Germany using force and coercion to purge Germany of the Jews in the 1930's needed to be addressed in the 1930's. We failed to address the racism and oppression of the Nazis in the 1930's and we're failing to address the racism and oppression of the Zionists today. There's no fundamental difference between the two.

I would argue that the elections of 2000 and 2004 both have huge significance today. We can't change history but we can certainly point to the significance of historical events in what happens as a result of those events. The origins of the Israeli-Arab conflict today are deeply rooted in the mismanagement of the "mandated territories" of the former Turkish empire by colonial nations of Western Europe at the end of WW I. Every student of history knows that it was the complete disregard for the welfare and rights of those living in "Mandatory Territory of Palestine" by the British Government that lead to the problem between Israeli Zionist Jews and the Arabs both in Palestine specifically in the Middle East generally.  We cannot ignore history when addressing the problems of today as historical actions created those problems.

Using the US presidential elections of 2000 as an example it was the election of former President Bush that directly lead to us now having a $16 trillion national debt today. When former President Bush turned a projected federal surplus revenue into a deficit revenue with his tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 it ultimately resulted in the $16 trillion national debt we currently have. It triggered a succession of historical events that would not have occurred without those tax cuts.     

Nov 22, 2014 18:16:04 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Nov 22, 2014 12:39:18 GMT ShivaTD said:

The problem of the Zionist Israelis using force and coercion to purge Arabs from portions of the occupied territories today is a problem that needs to be addressed today just like the Nazi government of Germany using force and coercion to purge Germany of the Jews in the 1930's needed to be addressed in the 1930's. We failed to address the racism and oppression of the Nazis in the 1930's and we're failing to address the racism and oppression of the Zionists today. There's no fundamental difference between the two.

I would argue that the elections of 2000 and 2004 both have huge significance today. We can't change history but we can certainly point to the significance of historical events in what happens as a result of those events. The origins of the Israeli-Arab conflict today are deeply rooted in the mismanagement of the "mandated territories" of the former Turkish empire by colonial nations of Western Europe at the end of WW I. Every student of history knows that it was the complete disregard for the welfare and rights of those living in "Mandatory Territory of Palestine" by the British Government that lead to the problem between Israeli Zionist Jews and the Arabs both in Palestine specifically in the Middle East generally.  We cannot ignore history when addressing the problems of today as historical actions created those problems.

Using the US presidential elections of 2000 as an example it was the election of former President Bush that directly lead to us now having a $16 trillion national debt today. When former President Bush turned a projected federal surplus revenue into a deficit revenue with his tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 it ultimately resulted in the $16 trillion national debt we currently have. It triggered a succession of historical events that would not have occurred without those tax cuts.     

B-b-b-but Bush...

That seems to be the never-ending mantra of those on the left, who do not wish to acknowledge the fact that Barack Obama is responsible for deficits totaling 3.5 trillion dollars (with the largest being 1.4 trillion dollars--far more than any deficits by his predecessor): www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/10/editorial-a-lull-in-the-storm/

You appear to be wanting to resurrect the Ottoman Empire, which has been nonexistent for almost 100 years now.

Note:  It is probably better to avoid intentionally incendiary language, such as "Zionist"; which is generally regarded as a slur... 

Just a historical note. When Former President Bush took office the federal revenue projections were that the national debt would be reduced to about $3.5 trillion (a necesary debt level due to the surplus in Social Security Trust Fund) but because of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and increased federal spending the national debt stood at about $10 trillion when he left office. That's a $6.5 trillion debt difference which is about equal to the increase of the national debt under Obama which, to a large degress, was also caused by the Bush era tax cuts that were extended by Congress.

Ottoman Empire colonialism was fundamtentally turned into Western European colonialism at the end of WW I. I oppose colonialism as it is the explotation of the people by a foreign government so I would have historically opposed both the Ottoman Empire colonialism and the British colonialism in the Middle East related to Palestine which violated the principles of Article 22 of the League of Nations that established that the "Mandatory" of the former Ottoman Empire territories teach the existing population how to self-govern themselves and that the rights of the exising population were paramount in all of the actions of the "Mandatory" assigned. Britian violated the Rights of the "Palestinians" related to "self-determination" with it's Mandate for Palestine that was never approved and was opposed by the existing resident population of Palestine in 1922 and thereafter.

"Zionism" is a defined political ideology and if the use of the word is considered a slur today then it is exclusively because of the historical political agenda and actions of the Zionists. If a person doesn't want to be called a Zionist then they simply need to reject the Zionist political agenda and condemn the actions of the Zionists. Being called a "murderer" is also a slur but all a person has to do to avoid the slur is to not be a murderer.