Respectful Politics Thread (Let's Just See)

LittleJerry92

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
17,366
Reaction score
7,701
So……. After the Jan 6 events, make of this what you will. Who knows what could potentially happen.


If he honestly does lose though, it’s not like the Democrats are gonna do anything to do their part trying to stop him if this “blood bath” of his is a legit threat or not and just blame Republicans for being too in control rather than holding themselves accountable for their own weaknesses. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

Muppet Master

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,772
Reaction score
1,580
It's the old "Trump says something, the media amplifies it, and his base says it was taken out of context". Feels like the same soap opera that has been going on for the last 8 years.
 

Angela Mae

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
79
Reaction score
32
This week's Essential poll shows that 29% of voters support Australian recognition of the "State of Palestine", while 24% are opposed, and 46% either don't know or don't care. Support for recognition is, not surprisingly, concentrated among Greens voters and young voters, and also (I assume, although the poll didn't ask this) among the Muslim community. In other words, this is an inner-city issue, which the rest of the country is indifferent to.

Recognition of the "State of Palestine" by Australia, a long-time friend of Israel, would be an important symbolic victory for the Palestinians and a correspondingly major defeat for Israel, particularly since few other western democracies have extended recognition. But what would it mean in practice?

Presumably, it would mean the establishment of a Palestinian Embassy in Canberra. What would this Embassy do? Since the "State of Palestine" does not actually exist, it would have very little actual diplomatic work to do. It could not issue visas, for example, since Israel controls entry to all the territories claimed by "Palestine." It could not negotiate trade agreements, since "Palestine" has no functioning economy, exports almost nothing, and lives off foreign aid.

What it would mainly do, in fact, is "symbolic diplomacy": hold receptions, issue proclamations and engage in propaganda against Israel. But most importantly, like all the other 119 embassies of "Palestine" around the world, it would provide comfortable jobs for Fatah functionaries, their friends and relatives, in a pleasant (if boring) city far from the discomforts of Ramallah. These jobs would of course be paid for from the billions in foreign aid which "Palestine" receives every year, including from Australia.

These "Potemkin embassies" are representative of the "Potemkin state" which is the "State of Palestine." This pseudo-state has no borders, no legislature, no elections, no economy, no currency, and no armed forces. It collects no taxes (Israel does that for the Palestinian Authority). It provides almost no services to the people who live under its authority (most are provided and/or paid for by international agencies). The 1.3 million people in the Palestinian territories who are recognised as "Palestinian refugees" by the United Nations come under the authority of UNRWA, not the Palestinian Authority.

Most importantly, "Palestine" has no territory over which is exercises sovereignty, which is the most basic requirement of statehood. All of Judaea and Samaria (the West Bank) is controlled directly or indirectly by Israel, and Gaza is currently being fought over by Israel and Hamas. It is a puzzle how the "friends of Palestine" can on the one hand assert that Palestine is a sovereign state, while on the other hand denouncing the Israeli occupation of that state's territory.

In practice, the Palestinian Authority, which claims to be the government of the "State of Palestine," is a kind of Arab Vichy regime, collaborating with Israel in the day-to-day management of the territory where it operates, and keeping order through various violent and lawless party militias, all the while proclaiming its independence and its undying hatred of the Zionist enemy. Most ordinary Palestinians, when they get a chance to speak (which is not often), understand this perfectly well.

The "State of Palestine" is of course riddled with corruption from top to bottom. Self-declared President Mahmoud Abbas is worth about US$100 million, all of it stolen one way or another. His predecessor Yasser Arafat stole an estimated US$1.3 billion, which his widow in Paris continues to enjoy. Theft and corruption are in fact the major activities of the "State of Palestine" and the parties such as Fatah which run it. Thanks to the gullibility of western donors, Palestinian nationalism has been a nice little earner for the Palestinian elite for many decades. Your taxes help to line their pockets and build the ostentatious mansions in which they live.

None of this, however, is the main reason I am opposed to Australian recognition of the "State of Palestine." The main argument against recognition is that it would reward the Palestinian leadership for their decades of rejectionism and refusal to negotiate seriously with Israel to secure a real, as opposed to fake, Palestinian state. If the Palestinian leadership had been willing to give up their fantasy of destroying Israel and driving the Jews into the sea, there would have been a real Palestinian state decades ago - and a much bigger one than any they are likely to secure in the future. Rewarding Palestinian rejectionism with diplomatic recognition of their fantasy state would send exactly the wrong message.
 

Muppet Master

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,772
Reaction score
1,580
I can't take this seriously when you leave out the fact that Israel is full of corruption, or is that "antisemitic" to point out? Netanyahu himself was on trial for fraud and bribery. Meanwhile, Joe Biden just sent another $26 billion of our tax dollars to them so they can continue bombing women, children, and possibly the hostages that they claim to care about.
 

Angela Mae

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
79
Reaction score
32
There are no Good Friday Agreements after a 7/10 and there are no "diplomatic overtures towards Afghanistan" after a 11/9.
 

LittleJerry92

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
17,366
Reaction score
7,701
The Israel-Palestine war has honestly only just divided people even more far as I’m concerned, and brought out way too many true colors at that. I’ve seen people who do show genuine sympathy and then meanwhile you have others who just pretend to care for social media clout.
 

Muppet Master

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,772
Reaction score
1,580
Like clockwork, washed-up comedians pop up to complain about wokeness.

Meanwhile, the examples Jerry provides for great comedy include Mary Tyler Moore and All In the Family, shows that were 100% "woke" for their time. Larry David's Curb ran for 10 seasons and just ended a week or two ago. South Park and Family Guy are still going strong. It's not offensive comedy people have a problem with, jerry, it's lazy comedy.

 

MWoO

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
2,222
Reaction score
1,611
Calling Seinfeld "washed up" is insane. He is still a big draw. He also didn't say anything was "woke" in this clip. He is saying that comedy is hurt by worrying about being offensive and having comedy reviewed by too many people. Like it or not, this is done specifically because of the left and a very overly PC culture.

All in the Family was very much a liberal show. The audience wasn't meant to agree with Archie by the end of the episode. However, it wasn't politically correct. It was far from it.

Heck, even the Muppets suffer from this corporate fear of being offensive. There is stuff that was done on The Muppet Show that would never be done today. This is the point Jerry was making. You can't water down comedy for fear of being offensive.
 

Muppet Master

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
2,772
Reaction score
1,580
Calling Seinfeld "washed up" is insane. He is still a big draw. He also didn't say anything was "woke" in this clip. He is saying that comedy is hurt by worrying about being offensive and having comedy reviewed by too many people. Like it or not, this is done specifically because of the left and a very overly PC culture.

All in the Family was very much a liberal show. The audience wasn't meant to agree with Archie by the end of the episode. However, it wasn't politically correct. It was far from it.

Heck, even the Muppets suffer from this corporate fear of being offensive. There is stuff that was done on The Muppet Show that would never be done today. This is the point Jerry was making. You can't water down comedy for fear of being offensive.
But Jerry was perfectly fine beating the woke drum in 1993 when he was on Seinfeld. He made sure to say "not that there's anything wrong with it" after mentioning gay relationships. For the time, that was ultra-liberal. Now that he's making Poptart movies with amy schumer, he's bitter about "PC Culture". Seems to me it's just a convenient excuse when a comedian is past their prime and not as popular as they once were.

The left obviously has people who get offended by comedy, but let's not act like the right isn't full of crybabies. Right-wingers protested against "Married...with Children" in the '80s and '90s, they literally tried to get the show off the air. They were the original SJWs.
 

MWoO

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
2,222
Reaction score
1,611
"Not that there's anything wrong with that" was the joke... it's a joke about two guys trying to "defend" themselves against being called gay, while also saying there is nothing wrong with being gay. That's the funny part. If it was just them claiming not to be gay, it wouldn't have been funny. It had nothing to do with Jerry trying not to offend people.

You spoke of great shows like All in the Famkly, but there is no way that show could be made today and be that popular for the very same reasons Jerry gave. Jerry didn't say being liberal was bad, he said the fear If being offensive is bad. If you conflate not being offensive with being liberal, I think you're on the wrong side of the fence on this one.
 
Top