Politics & Stuff

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

It really isn't. You're a man, what makes you so sure that is the answer? Equal rights = Equal say in abortion.

That's only your opinion. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be like Starbucks. There would be two on every block and four in every airport - and the morning after pill would come in different flavors like sea salt and cool ranch.

[Spike 12,049]

9 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

We were talking about Jesus appearance, not religion.

https://redneckrevolt.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/young-patriots-and-panthers-a-story-of-white-anti-racism/

Its widely sourced in documentaries

Again the term 'class' means something different in the US. Personally I would prefer a society where the need for social mobility wasn't there

 

Jesus appearance is religion. To dispute the religion is to dispute the faith that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. To dispute his ethnicity is to dispute history, if Jesus was real and born in Bethlehem, he would be Semitic in appearance because that is what the Jews are, that is what the Jews that lived there were. It is completely a grasp at straws to state  that Jesus was black, nothing more than a pipedream that wishes to use religion as a means of racial harmony. Facts don't care about your feelings.

That is a blog, it has no credence. I've no doubt that happened, I'm not disputing that but reading that blog and comparing it to your statement ' FBI really stepped up their extra-judicial killings of the Black Panthers was when they linked up with redneck traditional racists ' would make your statement more than a lie. Chicago is as redneck as Southampton and I read nothing suggesting that the whites were racist rednecks. The Confederate Flag means more to a lot of people than simply a 'flag for slavery' and not even mentioning the fact that Chicago isn't in the south so nobody would sincerely care about the Confederacy in Chicago. That reads like it was nothing more than a gesture of solidarity.

Humans are hierarchical in nature. There will always be those that are subservient and those that delegate. No men are equal, I'm not even equal to the man I was yesterday.

[Spike 12,049]

17 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

That's only your opinion. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be like Starbucks. There would be two on every block and four in every airport - and the morning after pill would come in different flavors like sea salt and cool ranch.

That is only your opinion. If women had total control over human life, than your mother can abort you right now if she wished. The rights of being human don't suddenly and magically appear at a certain age, they either exist or they don't. 
The murder of humans isn't the domain of women, it's the domain of all of us. I have a vested interest in the future of humanity and I will not relinquish my own humanity just because some people think that only women have rights to children. It takes two to tango in the human race and equality will never exist (as well as your social classless society) if one has monopoly over the value of human life. If a woman can decide to terminate a life than she is better than a man as she has her own set of morals that are above our own, if she is better than us she exists in her own social class. 

Human life begins at the moment of fertilization. It is a child, it is a life that will grow. To suggest that a woman can destroy a life on the basis that it is inside of her (it isn't her body, it is another's body) is to suggest that all human life is meaningless. All life is equal, and to add what I said earlier of men being inequal that is in terms of ability.

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

14 minutes ago, Spike said:

Jesus appearance is religion

That doesn't make any sense. . Some say it was just an allegory for a spiritual being. Maybe people don't like the notion that perhaps he was black

 

11 minutes ago, Spike said:

If women had total control over human life

They do when it's inside them. Your mother could have aborted you, and theres nothing your dad could have done about it. It really is amazing how some men think they have the right to interfere - they can have some input, but ultimately it's the womans choice.  Last time I checked, a man doesn't have to deal with the physical, emotional, and psychological ramifications of pregnancy and birth.

[Fernando 6,585]

FUNDAMENTALLY FREUND: EUROPE’S OCCUPATION HYPOCRISY

It might sound silly, but instead of constantly being on the defensive, perhaps it is at last time for Israel to give Europe a taste of its own medicine.

After Monday’s passage of the law aimed at regulating certain land issues in Judea and Samaria, Israel’s ostensible friends in Europe wasted little time before lambasting the Jewish state in remarkably harsh terms. Mustering all the vitriol at their disposal, which appears to be boundless when the subject is Israel, the leaders of the Continent went on a rhetorical rampage that was as obscene as it was offensive.

As usual, it was the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, who scaled the heights of hyperbole when she called the law “new and dangerous,” as though resolving land disputes through compensation was an entirely unheard-of concept in modern law. But then Mogherini went further, declaring that “the Israeli parliament has legislated on the legal status of land within occupied territory which is an issue that remains beyond its jurisdiction.”

The irony of her own statement was apparently lost on her. After all, what “jurisdiction” does Mogherini have to interfere in Israel’s internal affairs, berate its democratically- elected parliament or interpret the legislation it chooses to pass? Other leaders, such as French President Francois Hollande, denounced the legislation, saying it would “open the way to the annexation of the occupied territories,” while the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Nikolai Mladenov said that by legislating “in the occupied Palestinian lands,” Israel had crossed “a very thick red line.”

Well if European and international statesmen really want to have a debate about “occupied territories,” I say: bring it on.

A good place to start would be with some of Europe’s own colonial relics, which it greedily clings to, like a hung-over hobo grasping a bottle with a few remaining drops of vodka.

Take, for example, the island of Corsica, whose beautiful beaches, tranquil bays and dense forests conceal an ugly historical act: France’s 1768-69 invasion and annexation of the nascent republic. Despite the passage of nearly 250 years, many Corsicans continue to yearn for greater autonomy or even independence.

In December 2015, the nationalist Pè a Corsica Party dramatically won the island’s regional elections, coming within just two seats of an outright majority. And opinion polls show that two-thirds of Corsicans want to hold a referendum on independence from France.

Independence-minded Corsicans say that Paris has been deliberately trying to “Frenchify” the island, subduing its culture and language.

But when was the last time you heard European leaders, or anyone else for that matter, denouncing France for its “occupied territories”? And then, of course, there is Catalonia, where the regional government plans to hold a referendum on independence in September of this year despite opposition from Spanish authorities. Curiously, however, the Catalonians’ longing for independence doesn’t seem to elicit as much interest in Europe’s capitals as that of the Palestinians, even though the former have a much better case for a state of their own.

To begin with, there actually was a Catalonian state, albeit briefly, in the 17th century, whereas there has never been an independent Palestine in all of history. And even if one believes the Palestinians have been occupied since 1967, Spain has been occupying Catalonia for more than three centuries. That makes it a longer-running dispute, and justice delayed is justice denied. Moreover, Catalans can legitimately claim to be a nation with its own distinct language; the Palestinian Arabs cannot.

The list of course goes on, and includes places such as the Falklands.

It was 35 years ago this April that Britain dispatched a naval task force of more than 100 ships to take the islands back from Argentina, thereby reasserting their century- old colonial occupation.

More recently, in one of the biggest land-grabs in modern history, Norway cemented its hold on more than 2.7 million square kilometers of Antarctica when it unilaterally declared in June 2015 that its territory in the eastern part of the region extended all the way down to the South Pole. A white paper issued by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry stated openly that “the purpose of annexation was to subdue the land that now lies unclaimed,” and Norway asserts that the land belongs to it because it was there first.

Oddly, they don’t seem to apply the same logic to Judea and Samaria, where the Jewish presence predates the founding of Islam by over 1,500 years.

Clearly, when one puts things in historical perspective, Europe’s bellowing about Israel’s “occupied territories” is nothing more than diplomatic duplicity. This is especially true in light of the fact that Judea and Samaria are the ancient heartland of the Jewish people and the cradle of our civilization.

Unlike many of Europe’s own occupied territories, Israel has every right – morally, historically, theologically and militarily – to be in Judea and Samaria, and so we shall remain.

So next time the EU decides to holler about the need for “ending the occupation,” Israel should announce that it is sending human rights monitors to Corsica, Catalonia and other such areas, to ensure that the European occupying powers are not trampling on the rights of the indigenous residents.

And the Jewish state should also start working on some draft UN resolutions denouncing the ongoing European occupation of various parts of land around the world.

It might sound silly, but instead of constantly being on the defensive, perhaps it is at last time for Israel to give Europe a taste of its own medicine.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Fundamentally-Freund-Europes-occupation-hypocrisy-480986

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

23 minutes ago, Spike said:

That is a blog, it has no credence. I've no doubt that happened

Good.  Storyville, a BBC documentary covered it in detail

[Spike 12,049]

4 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

That doesn't make any sense. . Some say it was just an allegory for a spiritual being. Maybe people don't like the notion that perhaps he was black

 

They do when it's inside them. Your mother could have aborted you, and theres nothing your dad could have done about it. It really is amazing how some men think they have the right to interfere - they can have some input, but ultimately it's the womans choice.  Last time I checked, a man doesn't have to deal with the physical, emotional, and psychological ramifications of pregnancy and birth.

Of course it makes sense, the religion states that Betheleham was Jesus' birthplace, that requires faith. If you extrapolate the faith and used what we know about Israel then it comes to a an easy conclusion that Jesus was Semitic. You cannot seem to understand that based of historical evidence, the genetics of people living in the Levant, the political era and that Jews were semitic that Jesus was semitic, and if he was black he was Ethiopian which is incredibly unlikely. Of course you bring it back to racism, that is all everyone does, you don't like an opinion so it is racist. Forget empirical evidence

It's really amazing that women think they have the right to interfere in another's life.

[Spike 12,049]

Just now, Fulham Broadway said:

Good.  Storyville, a BBC documentary covered it in detail

That wasn't BBC.

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

Just now, Spike said:

That wasn't BBC.

Yes it was

https://www.ft.com/content/99b18b28-d698-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54

[Spike 12,049]

1 minute ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Yes it was

https://www.ft.com/content/99b18b28-d698-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54

I said the link you provided wasn't BBC/

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

the religion states that Betheleham was Jesus' birthplace

That still doesn't prove what he looked like

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

1 minute ago, Spike said:

I said the link you provided wasn't BBC/

Never mind, I've provided it now

[Spike 12,049]

5 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

That still doesn't prove what he looked like

You ignore what is inconvenient. I provide a BBC link that uses historical knowledge, genetics and science but that isn't good enough. You provide a BBC link about racial tensions in Chicago and it's good enough.

Would you dispute that ethnicity of William the Conquerer? He could have been Moorish, we just don't know, we only have five generations of his heritage as well as the knowledge he was from Normandy. That sort of ridiculous statement can be made about near any historical figure.

Maybe Muhammed was black despite being from Arabia.

[Fulham Broadway 17,306]

Just now, Spike said:

You ignore what is inconvenient. I provide a BBC link that uses historical knowledge, genetics and science but that isn't good enough. You provide a BBC link about racial tensions in Chicago and it's good enough.

The American history is documented by film and living witnesses. Jesus' appearance is based on hearsay and romantic paintings.

[Spike 12,049]

3 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

The American history is documented by film and living witnesses. Jesus' appearance is based on hearsay and romantic paintings.

Film and living witnesses lie. Why should I believe anyone just because they say it to be true, I give it more credence than a lot of other sources but it isn't infallible. It's as if you didn't even bother to read the material I provided. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965 Here is the link again, I gave you the courtesy of reading what you give me, please do the same for me.

Even in the bible, Judas tells the Roman soldiers which person is Jesus out of him and the other eleven disciples. If you believe that they were all black, you can if you like but between forensic evidence, historical data, the bible and common sense, it is completely safe to deduce that Jesus was Semitic. Not Italian, not Korean, not Chinese, not Black, not Ethiopian, Semitic. 

http://biblehub.com/parallelgospels/Judas_Betrays_Jesus_Soldiers_Arrest_Him_and_the_Disciples_Desert_Him_Friday_after_Midnight.htm

If you can give your belief to random people that state facts, you can do the same for scientists and the bible. If the Romans and many thousands of different people, tribes, ethnicity and cultures can accept Jesus as a Jew (the most hated religion of all time perhaps?) than they can accept him as a Black Jew, if it were the case.