Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Zevico]

Are you as dumb as HC?

Now I know: every serious debate begins with an ad hominem.

You happen to be ignoring the millions of Palestinians living in the territories, who are granted neither the right to form their own state nor citizenship in Israel.

Entirely wrong.
First, Israel proper, according to Israeli law, is composed of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the 48' territories. Every person within those boundaries is entitled to citizenship and equal rights under Israeli law.
Second, the Palestinian people outside of those areas presently reside within two states in substance though not in form. These states may be referred to as Hamas-controlled Gaza and the Fatah-controlled PA. Within the territory controlled by each of these political groups, the Palestinians are independent. They currently enjoy self-determination. Each of these groups is at war with Israel. They do not seek or want any rights under Israeli law. They do not have statehood simply because peace with Israel is currently a prerequisite to statehood. It's that simple.

[Kuciwalker]

It's a little odd that none of the actual participants to this conflict agree with your interpretation. It's also odd that this notional permanent state of war is used to justify what would be illegal annexation of territory.

[Kuciwalker]

Note that unlike the annexations in e.g. 67 the settlements serve no security purpose and are entirely mechanisms of ethnic cleansing.

[Kuciwalker]

Now I know: every serious debate begins with an ad hominem.

You're so dumb you don't even understand logical fallacies.

It would be an ad hominem fallacy if I said "you're dumb, therefore you're wrong". The converse, "you're wrong, therefore you're dumb" is legitimate inference.

[Zevico]

It's a little odd that none of the actual participants to this conflict agree with your interpretation.

Is it "odd"?
What is my interpretation, and how do the 'actual participants to this conflict' disagree with it?
I say this: the Palestinians (Fatah, Hamas) enjoy a large degree of self-determination. They conduct their own foreign policies, and they have their own militaries. They set economic and social policies. They have 'courts', and shoot people guilty of 'crimes.' They police themselves to the extent that they wish to. These also happen to be most of the attributes of statehood. These are plain facts. They are in a state of existential conflict with one another at present, Fatah and Hamas. A paper agreement in Cairo has not changed this fact, unless you think Mohammed Dahlan and Khaled Maashal are going to sit down for tea and biscuits any time soon.

By the way: if you don't know who Dahlan is, his history and his role in Fatah, you have no idea what Fatah is and where it's going. Fatah is the calendar boy for failed political experiments of the 20th century. It is corrupt, divided, and directionless.

It's also odd that this notional permanent state of war is used to justify what would be illegal annexation of territory.

It's also odd that you're reading things into my post that simply aren't there.

Note that unlike the annexations in e.g. 67 the settlements serve no security purpose and are entirely mechanisms of ethnic cleansing.

The "settlements" are a disparate collection of towns and it does little good to analyse them collectively. For example, some of them sit on high ground. Some are economically viable.

None are 'mechanisms of ethnic cleansing.' Their founding did not involve the ouster of Palestinians from anywhere.

[C0ckney]

zevico, what kuci is talking about with annexation of territory is not about your posts. it is about the situation on the ground right now. do you not see the utter dishonesty of the israeli position. talking about peace and two viable states and then presiding over actions on the ground which make that ever more impossible.

The "settlements" are a disparate collection of towns and it does little good to analyse them collectively. For example, some of them sit on high ground. Some are economically viable.

yes indeed they are all so different, they have different names and everything.

None are 'mechanisms of ethnic cleansing.' Their founding did not involve the ouster of Palestinians from anywhere.

you cannot be serious.

[C0ckney]

also, i see you are still playing the game of criticising hamas/fatah and then using these criticisms as an excuse to deny the palestinians their legitimate aspirations and to excuse israeli actions.

[Fake Boris]

The best argument for the repression of the Palestinians yet

Don't get too hot on this; I remember Azazel calling for the extermination of Palestinians.

[Cort Haus]

Classic poly dynamics at work here. Drake and Kuci have their penises in each others mouths to troll Cockney over the British empire, while ignoring the contrary position they have on the main thread-jack (Israel). Kuci bashes his brother for being pro-Israel, while Drake has a pop at Gribbler for being anti.

Circle-jerks

[Docfeelgood]

[Whoha]

FI, you're point still doesn't make sense. You can't compare them to the civilian labor force to say they are being overrepresented, because it is not a meaningful baseline. If you use population, they are underrepresented.

Bull, 100% of the population isn't able bodied/legally allowed to work.

And if you compare them among all other federal workers, they are even more underrepresented.

Compared to their even greater overrepresentation in other government jobs? Seriously? By that logic whites, who used to be basically 100% of all government workers are underrepresented today, by virtue of the fact that they don't hold 100% of all government jobs today.

The point here, going back to what boris asked, is that cutting spending is not going to be done in such a way that it won't hurt blacks, and they therefore have little reason to support the republican party, which tends to favor spending cuts.

[DaShi]

Bull, 100% of the population isn't able bodied/legally allowed to work.

Compared to their even greater overrepresentation in other government jobs? Seriously? By that logic whites, who used to be basically 100% of all government workers are underrepresented today, by virtue of the fact that they don't hold 100% of all government jobs today.

The point here, going back to what boris asked, is that cutting spending is not going to be done in such a way that it won't hurt blacks, and they therefore have little reason to support the republican party, which tends to favor spending cuts.

You're a moron. You compared them to civilian workers and are quibbling over better comparisons. I never said that they are the best baselines. They are just significantly better than the one you stupidly used. What's worse is that your arguments against them show an even worse understanding of how to compare statistics that I gave you credit for. The white people at 100% in the past argument? Do you even understand what you are saying?

The point here is that you made a really stupid statement from an inability to read articles and comprehend really basic statistics.

[Al B. Sure!]

Classic poly dynamics at work here. Drake and Kuci have their penises in each others mouths to troll Cockney over the British empire, while ignoring the contrary position they have on the main thread-jack (Israel). Kuci bashes his brother for being pro-Israel, while Drake has a pop at Gribbler for being anti.

Circle-jerks

Quiet, you! Don't expose the Genius Clique!

[Whoha]

Civilian Labor Force:A term used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to describe the subset of Americans who have jobs or are seeking a job, are at least 16 years old, are not serving in the military and are not institutionalized. In other words, all Americans who are eligible to work in the everyday U.S. economy.

Clearly the worst of all possible definitions to use.

The only thing that I'm having trouble with is just how stupid you are. Perhaps you can explain how not quite as much overrepresentation equals underrepresentation.

[giblets]

Why is the number of black people at a specific government agency even important?