Theres been a lot of negative stuff about Israel recently.    Israel as a nation has actions and decisions that are of course open to criticism.    I think the Jewish people are not the same thing as Israel. Tonight I want to focus on something incredible.    On this planet, there are like 14 million Jews.    Thats a tiny, tiny number compared to every other major religion.    On the one hand that could be looked at as a failing, as it makes the Jewish culture slightly more vulnerable to attack.    On the other hand, its incredible how successful the sum of that 14 million is.    From Nobel prize winners, to politicians, to media people, to actors, etc, the Jewish culture, specifically in America, has been incredibly successful for such a small number of people.    This begs the question, how was this achived and what are the hallmarks of the culture, that enable such success?

Given the time frame of "the future" and the ubequitous nature of the knowledge to make nukes, is proliferation and an eventual continuuation of use, inevitable?   MAD wasnt designed for many different states possessing nukes. It was a theory about 2. 

I think the word wigger is racist. It trades on complicit approval of the word nigger. It means white nigger.    40 years ago the prase would be "nigger lover".    Wigger means the exact same thing, and somehow its not racist.   I call shennanigans. 

Sexuality is meant to be binary.  We are all born with an assigned persuasion.   The more we learn about psychology, the more the idea of predetermination seems silly.  So much of human development seems to be a mix of nature and nurture.  So many of our choices, seem to put us on a spectrum.  Sexuality could well be something that is fluid and dynamic and exists on a spectrum.  This doesnt make straight people gay or vice versa, it just means that sexuality isnt simply a binary thing. If this is the case, then theres no reason to think having two gay people raise a kids, wont influence or affect their outlook and the way they express themselves and understand human relations.    Having two dads, is a seriously questionable role model for a young boy.    Do you aggree with it, or not. 

Whenever people talk about racism, pretend it isnt happening and use the word race card.   Then america can pretend it isnt going on racist, while the rest of the world laughs at its racism. 

60 years of wrestling. Not one black champ. Ok so its fake, but that is really, really fake. Look at other sports. Look at UFC about to pitch its tent on two incredible wrestlers in Cormier and Jones... In UFC Cormier manhandles a guy like Dan Henderson, in WWE hed probably lose. The PW Torch has gone on record stating talks with a WWE employee alleging a racist culture behind the scenes in WWE that apparently includes Vince McMahon giving his private jet a racially offensive nickname. In addition, Vince apparently tries to teach black wrestlers how to be "more black", whatever the hell that means. The creative team is made up almost entirely of white men with the exception of Dave Kapoor, who you may know as Ranjin Singh. It's alleged his nickname among some agents within the company is "Taliban". http://www.cagesideseats.com/2014/8/15/6004801/rumor-roundup-aug-15-2014-alleged-wwe-racism-sting-raw-smackdown-supershow-tapings   What we have here amounts to an alternative reality, in which black people are told to act "more black" except unlike their real life counter parts, they are prevented from ever winning the gold.    Racist storytelling version of america. 

USA, France, Britain and Germany to arm the Kurds against ISIS.    The kurdish army, called "those who face death", are locked in a bloody war with ISIS "those kicked out of al queda for being too fanatical". ISIS have stomped all in their path, in Iraq, on the way to setting up their dream of a muslim caliphate across the whole region, right up until now.  The kurds are the biggest ethnic group in the world without a homeland. They have one of the most unfortunate spots on the map, between Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Imagine Switzerland without the banks, surrounded by big nations in every direction. Now imagine these nations had eminity to the swiss.    Unlike switzerland of course, the kurds have needed to develop a fierce reputation for their fighting capacity. Unlike a lot of militant islam, they arent really known for being religious zealots. They even have women fighters on the frontline, unlike a lot of muslim nations or indeed a few christian ones.  Unfortunately for the kurds, ISIS had gotten hold of americas own toys, when they ransacked the basically shit, iraqi army. Kitted out with American military hardware, ISIS has been stomping everything in its path, and has now ran into a bloody war situation with a kurdish army, who are fighting completely out gunned.  The kurds are known in the west for their kebab shops and 24 hour supermarkets. They have many populations in europe, going back the the first iraq war, when they stood with america against Saddam and got gassed for it.    The kurds have a long history of siding with America in all things, and along with their bitter enemies Turkey, have been noted as one of the most reliable allies of the west in the middle east.     

The gun debate in america is a water mark issue in individual vs the state. The problem is, as I understand it as a Brit, the right is to bear arms is the provision and guns are simply the interpretation of this rule. Now hundreds of years ago, that meant literaly arming yourself with a gun, to protect yourself against potential state invasion or encroachment onto you, your property and your rights.    FF to 2014 and the whole debate is a distraction flirting with irrelavency.    The key issue here isnt whether guns are a rightous moral instrument against state oppression. The problem is that they arent effective at all. If the state ever wanted to crush the individual, it has more than enough power to feasibly do so. The real interpretation of the ammendment isnt concerning guns,  but instead is a continuation of the spirit of the rule, which means the individuals ability to hold insurance against the state. Those who are pro gun or anti gun can maintain their stances. What Im saying is someone needs to reinterpret the morals and spirit of this ammendment and use it to incorporate civil right to resistance, against things such as the patriot act and the wiretapping revelations.    Americans need to protect themselves against 2014 encroachments of the state, and not just arm themselves ineffectively for a civil war that will probably never come. 

...And so we come to ISIS. A group that has swept through the middle east, making their bones on America/Israels zionist terror brigades leftovers.  Their resume reads like a bad chuck norris joke, and they are known to be online (!), so watch out (!).  ISIS are so fucked up AQ kicked them out for being too violent. ISIS are so deplorable, they have managed to unite Kurdistan, Russia, USA, Israel and Iran, in a war against them. They are genociding anyone who isnt muslim, and sweeping through the vacuum Bush made of Iraq, in the hopes of establishing a 12th century caliphate in the region.    IMHO they have zero redeeming features and America is lucky enough to have al queda 2.0 in one place at the same time, asking for a war, instead of just using stealth and hiding in the civilian populous. ISIS dont hide in civilian populous, they behead them.    Currently they have some peeps trapped on a mountain and are about to genocide them, unless someone does something about it.  They have also managed to declare war on the Kurds, who are amongst the craziest fighters in history (women soldiers and perpetual war with iran, iraq, turkey and syria), and friendliest western loving allies in the region. The kurds are the ones you find in the west, owning 24 hour super markets and all night kebab shops. When Bush Sr made a propaganda speech about people rising up against Saddam, the kurds were actually dumb enough and courageous enough to do it. They got gassed in their 1000s, and bush sr did nothing to help them.  ISIS are the ones you find on liveleak, beheading people and screaming religious chants, like a live action version of a bad south park episode. When drunk American teenagers go on youtube, in their millions talking about America having up anyone on the planet, in 24 hours, if it wasnt for the pesky geneva convention, - ISIS are the ones all over liveleak, genociding everyone and offering america out.  So yeah, ISIS are basically at war with everybody, including you, even though youve just read their cute little name, and dont know who they are.  When ISIS arent beheading infedels, they love modern technology in all things apart from society, and are currently all over youtube arguing with drunk american teenagers who are screaming about christianity and nuking the fuck out of them.    ISIS for their part are posting dead american soldier pictures and promising another 9/11.    Verdict. - Much as I hate siding with Israel in anything, and am fully conscious of the support the zionist axis had for these c***s in Syria, this is a no brainer.    Genociding, freedom hating, religious nazis killing everything and shitting all over people. - Yeah, not on really, is it.    Verdict - Kill them all, and burn it...

Note to reader - No ones getting banned here, unless they really take the piss. This is a free and fair debate, with no moderation unless necessary. All view points welcome if politely expressed. I dont care if you are AIPAC or a Nazi. Get your views out and well have a free for all. Just be (reasonably) polite on a personal level, and reasonably well worded, if you are arguing on a subject matter.  If I feel you are really taking the piss, I will warn you, in public, and give you the chance to re edit. If you are some kind of supremacist, be careful how you express this, and be reasonably polite when adressing other posters. I dont want to be reading holocaust jokes and comments about dirty muslims etc. I dont want to be reading racial insults about other posters. I dont care what you believe, and you are free to express those beliefs in the context of this debate - politely or impersonally. That is all.  Cheers.    ---   As I see it.  1 Israel build on Palestinian land 2 Palestine seek recourse to international law, and are blocked by Americas veto, despite the fact the resolution is backed by the world. 3 Denied international justice Palestine defend their land with rockets, an escalation eventually killing 64 soldiers and 3 Israeli civilians.  4 Israel respond to the rockets by escalating a campaign of violence on the palestinian people, killing 1600 civilians and 300 children.    Critical points - 1 Palestine is denied sanctity of its land. 2 Palestine is denied international justice or recourse to justice. 3 Palestine is subject to a massively disproportionate massacre of its citizens.   Background -  Creation of the state of Israel, in someone elses land. Action of Israel building on the Palestinian land. Americas continued veto of resolutions with the worlds backing, seeking justice for Palestine Biased American news networks distorting the events with a completely alice in wonderland version of perspective, compared to the rest of the world. Massive institutional bias in Americas media, news, film industry and political infrastructure.  

If a woman punches, slaps, attacks a man, then she should expect a headbutt.    You cant go punching people, and if someone punches you, then they should expect the same back.    Having a vagina, doesnt give you a license to hit people. 

I think race is a myth.  Thats right, im not white. Im not a race traitor either, because the whole concept of race is a complete myth, that only the stupid and the lying would attest to. Ethnicity is real. Culture is real. and both of these things are substituted out for the word race, which really has no meaning.   Enter a room of 3 people. One is white, one is black and one is well, chinese... 3 different races? Nope.  In reality, there is a link between these 3 and zero border between them racially.  Acting like they look different is pointless.  I could be standing next to a tall person, and they are obviously different to me.  I could be standing next to a small person and they are obviously different to me. The key point is there are no color borders. We do not live in a neapolitan ice cream world, like the one constructed by our media and post slavery mentality. We live in a world, where if everyone held hands going from lightest to darkest, there would simply be no borders what so ever.   Taking arbitrary points in this human mix and saying "look! the look different!" is pointless, disingenuous and fallacy.  The whole thing is one big mix.    Lastly there was a story about a guy who could hear colors because of a brain injury. A black reporter asked him what noise his skin made. He said, the same as everyone elses. You are not black, you are just a different tone. You have the same hue as everyone else. 

1 It seems to conflict with a free and fair defence, when admitting to guilt is incentivised, and defending youself is punished.  2 It also gets real murderers off the hook. Killed 10 people, snitch on your boss, walk past their kids every day in the free world.   Full disclosure : Im 50s on this one, because I do understand the counter argument, but it seems morally wrong, and readily usable as a coercive technique of securing confession irrespective of truth.    I dont have some super strong opinion on this one. Im more interested in reading what others think.    The floor is yours peeps. 

Lets go back to a world, not so long ago, where we didnt have 24 hour rolling news, nevermind instant internet access to news.  Might was right, because history wasnt just told by the winners. People were actually proclaiming the end of history.  We found ourselves in a place, where the events of the day where being shaped as they happened, and planted in a context controlled and created by the powers that be.    So whats changed? On TV the honest answer is - not much! Our friend of today, may well be our enemy of yesterday and our enemy of tomorrow. Look at Ghaddafi for that one. Furthermore, our great allies like Saudi Arabia, seem effortlessly immune to public exposure, despite their predelictions for public execution.  Nope. The mainstream media isnt just as bad as its ever been. Its worse. The machines took over, and we are essentially post corporate media revolution.  However, none of that changes the fact, the internet brings instant news. It bring the goods from the ground to the man on the street 1000s of miles away, instantly.  Not only that, but the public is also making the opinions of the day. Both the newscaster and the opinion maker is the general public, often on the anonymous internet. This is something that the traditional news providers have a hard time getting a handle on, and for good reason - this is the first time in the history of mankind that its happened.    Even in the corportate media, this has a knock on effect.  And in the real power, ie the youth of USA and China, and the rest of the planet, who grew up in a digital age, this becomes the primary way of getting news. Word of mouth becomes internet rep. Bad as that sounds, it is a massive counter balance to the powers that be, glorifying any infringement of others rights, and encroachment onto their lands and peoples, with typical good goverment bullshit.  We cant just ignore or pretty up big conflicts today. Look at Syria with the myriad of angles and arguments. We hated Assad. Then we learned to hate the rebels.  The government can propaganderise and monitor the internet all it likes, but it is pandoras box. You dont control pandoras box. These days you arent just reading about people in wars and disasters, on the other side of the world. You are talking to them.  If something like Bhopal happened today, there would be no news black out and no where to hide.  We are moving into a world where might is no longer automatically right, when backed up by some neat PR.  

Two names loom large over the pop industry of the 20th century.    In the red corner we have the King of rock and roll, Elvis Presley.    In the blue corner we have Michael Jackson.   Who was the biggest act?