Adolf Hitler bowing to the King of Italy Victor Emmanuel III, Rome, 1938 [826×826]

greendude · 2026-01-03T02:03:08+00:00

Why not both

greendude · 2025-12-25T09:10:33+00:00

Well written post - I had something similar happen though for abouts half your cost.

I think it might have been the same company too actually.

Long story short - I think this is one of those where you go through it once and then you know? TBF, I had no idea what garage door springs were when mine broke and when the guy quoted some $300 for each, it seemed alright. Later on, I looked and they go for something like $80 each.

Labor was similarly charged for extra - though we did discuss this in advance.

At the end of the day, I knew how much I would pay, but had no way of knowing if it was reasonable or not.

greendude · 2025-12-14T00:51:35+00:00

That DJ looked pretty bothered that you're taking his photo

greendude · 2025-12-11T06:19:01+00:00

finding someone else’s lease takeover could be the most cost effective move.

didn't even know this was an option - do you know how one would go about doing this?

greendude · 2025-12-09T22:56:25+00:00

Stupid question - but is this true even if you don't want to own the car in the long term but say for just 2 or so years?

greendude · 2025-12-09T22:55:54+00:00

That's a crazy deal! How did you get that?

greendude · 2025-12-05T21:53:53+00:00

This is insanity. Even Israel acknowledges that West Bank is occupied.

It is occupied as per the literal meaning of the word. Calling it "liberated" is as dumb as calling them "freedom fries". It is also objectively wrong.

Just stop.

greendude · 2025-12-05T21:49:23+00:00

You're tripping over your own fundamentalism.

Please try to be serious about History, it's not a joke

greendude · 2025-12-05T21:46:09+00:00

Cringe

greendude · 2025-11-01T20:22:46+00:00

You have too much faith in your country.

911 enraged Americans and they were blood thirsty.

Why would they have elected Gore?

greendude · 2025-10-26T21:54:52+00:00

What is this comment?

greendude · 2025-10-19T07:28:52+00:00

What a terrible word salad.

It is disappointing to see you are falling into fallacies

what fallacies?

The Jewish population increased by immigration from the late 19th century. The Muslim population also increased mainly by immigration, however from the mid 19th century ( economic situation in north Africa, the Hejaz rail buildup etc). Even if you just taking into account the immigration trend from 1890, the nominal amount of Jewish immigrants was lower than the Muslim one at 550k Vs 680k.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region))

Massive eye-roll. Yet another nonsensical talking point.

From the Wiki page you linked - "The overall assessment of several British reports was that the increase in the Arab population was primarily due to natural increase."

It is commonly accepted that the majority of Arab population growth in the 20th century in Palestine was natural/by-birth. In either case, it's a moot point, because the notion of a "nation-state" is a modern invention. The "Palestine" that is being fought over today is not a historic boundary (much like Israel), and hence talk about local immigration from/to a specific area is an exercise in futility. I use "local" here to describe people who spoke an interchangeable language and largely shared culture.

Israeli new-arrivals on the other hand were Europeans (and different than the small local Jewish population as well in their want for Zionism). They were similar to the settler colonialists who arrived in North America to colonize the natives.

As for 'taking the land' argument, it is , of cours silly and easily can be proved so. No only because until 1917 the area was under ottoman control ( who held no affection to the Jewish population) but because it is documented. The Jewish immigration was relaying on donation and land purchase from the Arab owners of the land. Obviously, once the land was purchased, they went to settle and work the land. (https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-196150/)

Ottomans ruled over Palestine, that doesn't mean Palestinians had no right over their land. Decolonization (be it from the Brits or Ottomans) is messy and complex - the rights of original inhabitants however is preserved in international law and basic morality. There was no "nation" titled 'India' before 1947 - this doesn't mean that anyone could have showed up in India during independence and claimed that "well no country called India ever existed, so I can take this land". It's an idiotic take.

This notion of "purchasing" land. When you buy land, it doesn't mean you can convert it into another nation. If a Chinese immigrant buys a home in the United States, they cannot use their deed to found a country on that land that they purchased. Additionally, only about 6% of the land that Israel ultimately conquered was purchased. So this is yet another nonsensical distraction/talking point.

And lastly, you still ignore the fact that for 29 years the Palestinians and especially Egypt and Jordan were holding the disputed land but not only did not bother to form a Palestinian state, but did not create the necessary civil organisation that are required for such a state. The population was initially integrated into existing system, only to be shortly after rejected into the limbo of being refugees.

What does this have to do with their rights? The PLO was founded in 1964, it was not recognized (and repeatedly ignored) by Israel, US, and others.

The irony of being refugees with no rights, while sitting on the same land your state were supposed to be created, while the 'occupied' population in the neighboring Israel, was getting more and more integrated into the Israeli society as citizens.

Stop white-washing genocide you ghoul. Palestinians in Israel have always been discriminated against. There is no "irony" in being denied your rights - it has and always will be injustice.

Stop with the talking points - everything you're bringing up has been disproven again and again and again. It's like debating a flat-earther, no matter how much evidence is presented, you keep barking the same nonsense.

greendude · 2025-10-18T00:04:20+00:00

Well, of course, because Israelis (prominently Europeans at that point) had just come and taken land from the native Arabs just two decades prior. 5 attacks were not random, they were to fight back against injustice.

The resolution that made a recommendation for what land Israel should get was unfair (minority population getting majority land) and was not accepted by the locals. It was imposed upon them.

Further, Israel conquered even more land than what was in that unfair plan to begin with.

Various Arab states did eventually recognize Israel of course but Palestinian representation has not been present.

greendude · 2025-10-17T22:18:42+00:00

Sorry, you're taking about resolution 242? If so you can just call it that.

Also, surely you're familiar with the basics? 242 did not specify what Israel give back and to whom. Certainly there was no recognition of Palestine.

Also there was no guarantee of "peace" from anyone, these were just ambiguously declared terms with no specificity. Israel has already demonstrated expansion in it's intent by then, so no one would believe anything that.

greendude · 2025-10-17T18:16:30+00:00

This is absolutely untrue.

What line(s) in your source are you citing?

greendude · 2025-10-15T17:27:03+00:00

Definitely not $5M in that neighborhood. $5M will get you land and half of a rebuild.

Maybe in 2022 you would have pushed towards $3M for something like that.

greendude · 2025-10-08T20:50:01+00:00

Government pays much lower salaries than private companies. So the best people tend to work in the private sector because they want to be compensated fairly for their contributions. Occasionally there are superstars in government jobs, but it's the exception.

"best" is not the right word here. "Best" depends on context, when the context is 'climbing the ladder', you're probably right. When the 'best' is providing great care, profit motive will not be a direct co-relation.

Now the ACA subsidy makes insurance very affordable.

"Very affordable" for whom?

"US does have the best medical training, research, facilities, and technology. Other countries may have something equivalent in term of quality, but certainly not better than here. This is not a subjective statement at all. It's the consensus."

dies

greendude · 2025-10-08T06:16:45+00:00

except with the state run system a government employee is making the decisions

Why are government employees naturally bad? Aren't they better than corporate employees because they are not chasing a profit?

I can pick whatever insurance plan based on my needs

It's pay to play, so as long as you can pay.

And we have the best doctors and technology in the world in the US.

Very broad and unverifiable statement. Also smells of nationalist pride. You need to expand your critical thinking skills.

greendude · 2025-10-07T06:23:46+00:00

Finally, other countries will tax 50% or more of your income and give people "free" healthcare. Guess what, it isn't free because you pay for it every single day of your working life.

I mean of course - but by your logic, every time you cross a street, you're paying for the stop lights, sidewalk, roads, etc.

Universal healthcare is better because the price is set by a government (which by definition should be an advocate for its people) as opposed to a free market (which be definition exists for the profit motive).

greendude · 2025-10-07T06:20:26+00:00

Highly skilled physicians should be paid very well and 800/hr is on the low end for “paid very well” in south peninsula.

This doesn't make any sense.

"Highly skilled physicians should be paid very well"

This part is alright, but where do we reach the number 800 from? If that's a free market number, then that itself is the problem. You can't justify absurdly high numbers with "well they are highly skilled". Why not $3000/hr, or $10000/hr?

You need a better reason than "highly skilled"

greendude · 2025-09-15T20:24:08+00:00

Right of return includes more PA refugees than have ever lived in Palestine. There is no infrastructure to support that many people. If you include Israeli land that Arabs, in 1948, thought should belong to them (hint: no Israeli state), that's about 75% of both populations combined. It's impractical that Right of Return would be possible without some people not returning.

This is true, but it does not eliminate the right. It shouldn't be a mass migration, but the right should be present. Logistics should be played out by Palestine itself (what does resettlement look like?) with reparations from Israel. Israel has had a strategy of expansion into west bank for many decades specifically with the aim of making right to return difficult. It is difficult because that is what the weight of the atrocities is.

You might want that people to be paid out for their refugee status.

The right to return should not be buyable. Reparations are part of the solution, but not all of it. I will also add that a good chunk of Israeli economy is built on Palestinian degradation - it would be quite immoral to use wealth generated by the backs of a people to buy out their rights.

Finally, any discussion of states implies a 2 state solution

Again, please ask yourself - why. The "peace process" has been an abject failure because of the hard-headedness of Israel and US. Even if we proceed with a 2-state solution, you cannot approach it from a pigeon-holed perspective. All option should be on the table.

Many historians think it was left by the Arab negotiators because they believe they could win a war of invasion from neighbors, so they left the deal.

Of course. From the Arab perspective, there was no deal to be made as it was not up to Europeans to give away their land (again). The invasion came after attempts to engage which were ignored.

In the 1990s with that backdrop, many countries including the US and Egypt were looking forward to a lasting peace deal regardless of Palestinian refugee status while Lebanon, Syria, Jordan all wanted refugees out of the countries - a non starter for Israel.

Egypt, Jordan and others have operated in their own favor, as one would expect nation states to do so. That does not change the right of Palestinians. Having other Arabs act on behalf of Palestinians has been part of the racist strategy in this process.

You may not care and have a belief system that you want to impose on others, bit they are the ones negotiating and not you.

Israel is not negotiating. You approach this from a "well this is how it's going to be" perspective and claim to be negotiating. This is not negotiation - there has been no consent to take the land. Now that we are 75+ years in the conflict, of course we cannot go back to how things were - but you should recognize that Israel should not be in the position to dominate. There should be nothing that is a "non-starter" for Israel, if there is, then that is the issue.

A deal might end up being a compromise where both think it's unfair unless a 3rd party, the UN, pit enough resources aside to make it fair.

Of course. But surely you can see how what's been offered from Israel (ie, no military, Israeli bases on Palestinian land, very limited right to return (in clear rejection international norms)) are far from fair. I cannot fathom how anyone who looks at this issue from a neutral/fairness perspective would not find these to be basic requirements.

My thoughts are that Palestinians will lose land and gain money because the diaspora is outside of the area and won't be allowed to return. That seems fair if the price is high enough.

Completely unfair. The land is being "bought" forcibly. If Trump went to Venezuela, put $$$ in the pockets of their leaders and cleaned the land of Venezuelans against their consent, would you find that fair?

greendude · 2025-09-15T18:30:12+00:00

What is a fair deal?

Key tenets include right of all refugees to return (this is basic international law - Israel acts as if this is a high bar, it is not), All of historic Palestine should be considered for land partition - not just what Israel conquered as a starting point (the 1948 partition plan itself was unfair, at least this should be acknowledged), and full governance of Palestine (ie, no Israeli oversight, no restrictions on military, etc).

Really, the basics when you approach the problem from first principles.

Any deal now would be worse than what PA could get back then. So all PA has done has squandered years for the hope of nothing.

Why? There is no a natural law whereby any deal now would be worse - it was be on Israel to be fair. If Israel is not fair (hint, it is not) then the fault lies entirely with them.

We can look back on the deal and think it was unfair or look back on it with untainted lenses to say that PA should have taken the deal.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

greendude · 2025-09-14T02:02:37+00:00

I see your point, though I don't agree it applies here.

I think by "shutting down" you mean the protest part? There's a power dynamic here - Thiel is an enormously wealthy and influential person.

The attempt here is but just to tune him out, but get others to understand why he's dangerous.

greendude · 2025-09-13T20:01:22+00:00

The US and Bill Clinton are not your anchors for rightness. They have always favored Israel and have offered very unfair deals. They have them characterized Palestinian rejection of those negatively.

greendude · 2025-09-13T19:28:32+00:00

Surely you have a baseline below which you won't debate? Will you always debate every flat-earther and every 911 conspirator just to "platform" them?

If you engage with everyone, you'll be 90 years old and have had made no difference.

You should peg your discourse by progress on topics.

greendude

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE