However, in July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's Damascus-based political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with "a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders"
Note what he did not say. He did not say that they would be willing to accept a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Jewish state of any kind.
Has Abbas ever stated that he would be willing to accept a Jewish state? I believe that he has on several occasions said things that if you listen closely indicate that he would be perfectly happy with a two state solution, as long as both states are controlled by Muslims.
He does not have to own stock in any of the companies that profit from the current, broken patent system to have a vested interest in the current system. He is the head of the Patent Office. Most of the suggested reforms would reduce the significance of the Patent Office, which would reduce his significance.
I am not sure how you get the idea that it is hard to be at peace with a non-existent entity. It is very easy to be at peace with a non-existent entity. The U.S. has been at peace with the Soviet Union for a couple of decades now.
What most people do not seem to understand is that you cannot be a good Muslim and accept a non-Muslim country anywhere in the Middle East (or anywhere else where Muslims ruled at any time in the past). It is a basic tenet of Islam that once an area is ruled by Muslims it must be ruled by Muslims ever after.
Why should they? The taxpayer will pick up the tab when they bet wrong. It is a win-win situation. If they get it right, they make big bucks. If they get it wrong, the tax payer will cover their losses.
The Hamas has stated when: when Israel removes their blockade.
You mean the same Hamas that has as a part of its founding charter that the destruction of Israel is one of its goals? That has not changed that charter to reflect any change in that position?
Exactly what has Abbas done to advance the peace process? Has he at any time said that there are conditions under which he would be willing to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East?
The fact that those missiles strike crowded residential areas probably has something to do with various Arab organizations launching missiles at Israel from those very same residential areas. When you place military targets in residential areas, those residential areas become military targets.
Well you know casualties happen in war, some of them civilians. If the Arabs were not insistent on waging war on Israel and would instead negotiate a peace treaty, perhaps Israel would no longer launch attacks which kill some of those Arabs which live in Palestine.
I don't know why you have a problem bringing up questions about spontaneous generation, most evolutionists believe in it. They just think it happened millions of years ago and doesn't happen anymore.
That is an interesting definition of freedom: a society where the organization that replaces government will tell you what you must do and give you what you are allowed to have.
The only way I would accept someone's intent as established beyond a reasonable doubt would be if they said so in court under oath, and even then not more than 50% of the time. If someone says, "That's not why I did it!" how can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that that is why they did it?
They had to push it on desktop users or their entire business plan would fall apart.
Of course, it appears that there entire business plan has fallen apart and they have made it very difficult to fall back into a default of their old business plan until they come up with a new one that works.
I don't know about your university, but are you OK with a university punishing a student for racial harassment for reading a book about the KKK in front of someone who was black? How about when you discover that the book was "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan"?
You're presenting not just publications favored by political parties, but one publication with a very solid history of integrity and factual presentation of information with a publication owned by a very deceptive corporation.
You say this and I think, "How can anybody say that about a paper owned by Newscorp." But then you go on and talk about how unreliable Newscorp is as a news source and I think, "This guy thinks that the NYT has a history of integrity and factual presentation of information. What a strange definition of integrity." The NYT is a newspaper that won several Pulitzer Prizes for printing articles by Walter Duranty saying that the Ukraine famines orchestrated by Stalin were not happening. The NYT is the newspaper that promoted Jayson Blair when his boss at the time wrote a memo saying, "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now." This was in response to articles containing fabrications that Jayson Blair had written. There are many other examples in between those two individuals that demonstrate that the NYT has never been a newspaper with integrity (although it managed to build a reputation for integrity, it never actually had any).
Except of course that it was not a College Republican (or any other form of Republican) talking to the Wall Street Journal. It was Greg Lukianoff, Greg Lukianoff is an atheist, a Democrat, a supporter of same-sex marriage, and a supporter of abortion rights.
Publicly financed universities face a special problem, in that tax dollars may not be used to promote religion and that there are a few other restrictions.
This has been stated by several people in this discussion and it is, for the most part, not true. Public universities have rather consistently lost when their speech codes (and other restrictions on speech) have been challenged in court.
First point, I am pretty sure that the FIRE database is going to be composed of the cases they have been contacted about and saw as being in need of intervention.
Second point, please give a little information about the left-leaning cases that you are aware of, do they involve public universities, or schools which do not explicitly claim to be partisan or sectarian?
If they're public universities, strong restrictions on free speech on campus are a consequence of restrictions on the use of public funds and resources to promote personal political and religious views.
I keep seeing this. The fact of the matter is that universities have consistently lost in court when these "strong restrictions on free speech on campus" have been challenged in court. The fact of the matter is that public universities have strong speech codes because those who run them don't want people saying things that they do not approve of. The courts have consistently ruled against these speech codes when FIRE has challenged them in court.
My first post in this thread was in response to someone who said that the south has never been forced to accept integration socially. I asked them how you force someone to accept something socially. What is, and is not, accepted socially is more a matter of what people think than what they do. While there are actions which demonstrate what is socially acceptable and what is not, it is very hard to separate actions which are designed to promote an "unacceptable" social standard from perfectly innocent actions without knowing what people are thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
However, in July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's Damascus-based political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with "a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders"
Note what he did not say. He did not say that they would be willing to accept a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Jewish state of any kind.
Has Abbas ever stated that he would be willing to accept a Jewish state? I believe that he has on several occasions said things that if you listen closely indicate that he would be perfectly happy with a two state solution, as long as both states are controlled by Muslims.
He does not have to own stock in any of the companies that profit from the current, broken patent system to have a vested interest in the current system. He is the head of the Patent Office. Most of the suggested reforms would reduce the significance of the Patent Office, which would reduce his significance.
I am not sure how you get the idea that it is hard to be at peace with a non-existent entity. It is very easy to be at peace with a non-existent entity. The U.S. has been at peace with the Soviet Union for a couple of decades now.
What most people do not seem to understand is that you cannot be a good Muslim and accept a non-Muslim country anywhere in the Middle East (or anywhere else where Muslims ruled at any time in the past). It is a basic tenet of Islam that once an area is ruled by Muslims it must be ruled by Muslims ever after.
Why should they? The taxpayer will pick up the tab when they bet wrong. It is a win-win situation. If they get it right, they make big bucks. If they get it wrong, the tax payer will cover their losses.
The Hamas has stated when: when Israel removes their blockade.
You mean the same Hamas that has as a part of its founding charter that the destruction of Israel is one of its goals? That has not changed that charter to reflect any change in that position?
Exactly what has Abbas done to advance the peace process? Has he at any time said that there are conditions under which he would be willing to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East?
You are correct, when do you think the Palestinians will begin to show any interest in a peace treaty with Israel?
The fact that those missiles strike crowded residential areas probably has something to do with various Arab organizations launching missiles at Israel from those very same residential areas. When you place military targets in residential areas, those residential areas become military targets.
Well you know casualties happen in war, some of them civilians. If the Arabs were not insistent on waging war on Israel and would instead negotiate a peace treaty, perhaps Israel would no longer launch attacks which kill some of those Arabs which live in Palestine.
I don't know why you have a problem bringing up questions about spontaneous generation, most evolutionists believe in it. They just think it happened millions of years ago and doesn't happen anymore.
You apparently don't know human nature.
That is an interesting definition of freedom: a society where the organization that replaces government will tell you what you must do and give you what you are allowed to have.
The only way I would accept someone's intent as established beyond a reasonable doubt would be if they said so in court under oath, and even then not more than 50% of the time. If someone says, "That's not why I did it!" how can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that that is why they did it?
They had to push it on desktop users or their entire business plan would fall apart.
Of course, it appears that there entire business plan has fallen apart and they have made it very difficult to fall back into a default of their old business plan until they come up with a new one that works.
Why shouldn't crime be judged on both action and intent?
Because we cannot actually know what a person's intent was.
I don't know about your university, but are you OK with a university punishing a student for racial harassment for reading a book about the KKK in front of someone who was black? How about when you discover that the book was "Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan"?
The bulk of the article is derived from information provided to the reporter by Greg Lukianoff, a Democrat.
You're presenting not just publications favored by political parties, but one publication with a very solid history of integrity and factual presentation of information with a publication owned by a very deceptive corporation.
You say this and I think, "How can anybody say that about a paper owned by Newscorp." But then you go on and talk about how unreliable Newscorp is as a news source and I think, "This guy thinks that the NYT has a history of integrity and factual presentation of information. What a strange definition of integrity." The NYT is a newspaper that won several Pulitzer Prizes for printing articles by Walter Duranty saying that the Ukraine famines orchestrated by Stalin were not happening. The NYT is the newspaper that promoted Jayson Blair when his boss at the time wrote a memo saying, "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now." This was in response to articles containing fabrications that Jayson Blair had written. There are many other examples in between those two individuals that demonstrate that the NYT has never been a newspaper with integrity (although it managed to build a reputation for integrity, it never actually had any).
Except of course that it was not a College Republican (or any other form of Republican) talking to the Wall Street Journal. It was Greg Lukianoff, Greg Lukianoff is an atheist, a Democrat, a supporter of same-sex marriage, and a supporter of abortion rights.
Publicly financed universities face a special problem, in that tax dollars may not be used to promote religion and that there are a few other restrictions.
This has been stated by several people in this discussion and it is, for the most part, not true. Public universities have rather consistently lost when their speech codes (and other restrictions on speech) have been challenged in court.
First point, I am pretty sure that the FIRE database is going to be composed of the cases they have been contacted about and saw as being in need of intervention.
Second point, please give a little information about the left-leaning cases that you are aware of, do they involve public universities, or schools which do not explicitly claim to be partisan or sectarian?
If they're public universities, strong restrictions on free speech on campus are a consequence of restrictions on the use of public funds and resources to promote personal political and religious views.
I keep seeing this. The fact of the matter is that universities have consistently lost in court when these "strong restrictions on free speech on campus" have been challenged in court. The fact of the matter is that public universities have strong speech codes because those who run them don't want people saying things that they do not approve of. The courts have consistently ruled against these speech codes when FIRE has challenged them in court.
My first post in this thread was in response to someone who said that the south has never been forced to accept integration socially. I asked them how you force someone to accept something socially. What is, and is not, accepted socially is more a matter of what people think than what they do. While there are actions which demonstrate what is socially acceptable and what is not, it is very hard to separate actions which are designed to promote an "unacceptable" social standard from perfectly innocent actions without knowing what people are thinking.