|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
|
|
One of the groups is even called the republican jewish coalition... thus the jewish lobby is an appropriate label. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
|
United States43269 Posts
On September 05 2013 07:02 DoubleReed wrote:The Israel Lobby has gotten involved. And politicians are of course scared of the Israel Lobby: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/in-sunlight-at-last-israel-lobby-throws-its-full-weight-behind-obamas-syria-strike.htmlShow nested quote +The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) issued an Action Alert today to our 45,000 members, calling on them to reach out to their elected officials in the House and Senate, to ask them to support the upcoming resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria.
The Action Alert stressed the moral threshold that has been crossed by Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people.
We also emphasized that it is in America’s vital national interests that we continue to be able to project – in Syria and elsewhere – a credible military deterrent.
J Street is still on the fence. Its last statement, a week ago, condemned what it called Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians and called on the US “and the international community… [to] hold President Assad and all responsible for this heinous crime fully accountable.” I bet J Street comes off the fence.
Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post reports that Chuck Hagel has reached out to the pro-Israel groups for their support and states the bottom line for supporters of Israel: Iran: “there is consensus in the mostly-Democratic pro-Israel community that the Syria vote and Iran are inextricably linked. If so, a ‘no’ vote would be catastrophic.” And btw, please refer to it as the Israel Lobby, not the Jewish Lobby. That can be pretty offensive to Jewish Americans.
If they call themselves the Republican Jewish Coalition then I should be allowed to call them jews.
|
On September 05 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 09:12 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2013 07:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Issues of electricity regulation typically play out in drab government hearing rooms. That has not been the case this summer in Arizona, where a noisy argument – featuring TV attack ads and dueling websites – has broken out between regulated utilities and the rooftop solar industry.
An Internet web video attacks the California startup companies that sell rooftop solar systems as the “new Solyndras,” which are spending “hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize their wealthy customers.” Meantime, solar companies accuse Arizona Public Service, the state’s biggest utility, of wanting to “extinguish the independent rooftop solar market in Arizona to protect its monopoly.”
Similar battles about how rooftop solar should be regulated have flared in California, Colorado, Idaho, and Louisana. And the outcome of these power struggles could have a major impact on the future of solar in the U.S.
Today’s solar industry is puny – it supplies less than 1 percent of the electricity in the U.S. – but its advocates say that solar is, at long last, ready to move from the fringe of the energy economy to the mainstream. Photovoltaic panel prices are falling. Low-cost financing for installing rooftop solar is available. Federal and state government incentives remain generous.
Yet opposition from regulated utilities, which burn fossil fuels to produce most of their electricity, could stop a solar boom before it gets started.
Several utilities, including Arizona Public Service and Denver-based Xcel Energy, have asked their state regulators to reduce incentives or impose charges on customers who install rooftop solar; so far, at least, they aren’t making much headway. A bill in the California legislature, backed by the utility interests would add $120 a year in fees to rooftop solar customers. Source Are there any good reasons why the panel owners shouldn't have to start paying fees for the services they receive? What services? Net metering. The utility has to do work to facilitate that.
Doesn't that get done with the regular work to maintain services in the area? You know, the part where fees that everybody pays already cover it?
|
On September 05 2013 09:33 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2013 09:12 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2013 07:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Issues of electricity regulation typically play out in drab government hearing rooms. That has not been the case this summer in Arizona, where a noisy argument – featuring TV attack ads and dueling websites – has broken out between regulated utilities and the rooftop solar industry.
An Internet web video attacks the California startup companies that sell rooftop solar systems as the “new Solyndras,” which are spending “hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize their wealthy customers.” Meantime, solar companies accuse Arizona Public Service, the state’s biggest utility, of wanting to “extinguish the independent rooftop solar market in Arizona to protect its monopoly.”
Similar battles about how rooftop solar should be regulated have flared in California, Colorado, Idaho, and Louisana. And the outcome of these power struggles could have a major impact on the future of solar in the U.S.
Today’s solar industry is puny – it supplies less than 1 percent of the electricity in the U.S. – but its advocates say that solar is, at long last, ready to move from the fringe of the energy economy to the mainstream. Photovoltaic panel prices are falling. Low-cost financing for installing rooftop solar is available. Federal and state government incentives remain generous.
Yet opposition from regulated utilities, which burn fossil fuels to produce most of their electricity, could stop a solar boom before it gets started.
Several utilities, including Arizona Public Service and Denver-based Xcel Energy, have asked their state regulators to reduce incentives or impose charges on customers who install rooftop solar; so far, at least, they aren’t making much headway. A bill in the California legislature, backed by the utility interests would add $120 a year in fees to rooftop solar customers. Source Are there any good reasons why the panel owners shouldn't have to start paying fees for the services they receive? What services? Net metering. The utility has to do work to facilitate that. Doesn't that get done with the regular work to maintain services in the area? You know, the part where fees that everybody pays already cover it?
No, net metering creates new costs.
|
On September 05 2013 09:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 07:02 DoubleReed wrote:The Israel Lobby has gotten involved. And politicians are of course scared of the Israel Lobby: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/in-sunlight-at-last-israel-lobby-throws-its-full-weight-behind-obamas-syria-strike.htmlThe Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) issued an Action Alert today to our 45,000 members, calling on them to reach out to their elected officials in the House and Senate, to ask them to support the upcoming resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria.
The Action Alert stressed the moral threshold that has been crossed by Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people.
We also emphasized that it is in America’s vital national interests that we continue to be able to project – in Syria and elsewhere – a credible military deterrent.
J Street is still on the fence. Its last statement, a week ago, condemned what it called Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians and called on the US “and the international community… [to] hold President Assad and all responsible for this heinous crime fully accountable.” I bet J Street comes off the fence.
Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post reports that Chuck Hagel has reached out to the pro-Israel groups for their support and states the bottom line for supporters of Israel: Iran: “there is consensus in the mostly-Democratic pro-Israel community that the Syria vote and Iran are inextricably linked. If so, a ‘no’ vote would be catastrophic.” And btw, please refer to it as the Israel Lobby, not the Jewish Lobby. That can be pretty offensive to Jewish Americans. If they call themselves the Republican Jewish Coalition then I should be allowed to call them jews.
You realize you just flipped what I said, right? While Israel Lobby are mostly Jews, American Jews are not Israeli. You said the former, I said the latter.
American Jews are Americans. Calling it the Jewish Lobby can be annoying and frustrating, as it often implies that American Jews put Israel before America.
|
On September 05 2013 09:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 09:33 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2013 09:12 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2013 07:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Issues of electricity regulation typically play out in drab government hearing rooms. That has not been the case this summer in Arizona, where a noisy argument – featuring TV attack ads and dueling websites – has broken out between regulated utilities and the rooftop solar industry.
An Internet web video attacks the California startup companies that sell rooftop solar systems as the “new Solyndras,” which are spending “hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize their wealthy customers.” Meantime, solar companies accuse Arizona Public Service, the state’s biggest utility, of wanting to “extinguish the independent rooftop solar market in Arizona to protect its monopoly.”
Similar battles about how rooftop solar should be regulated have flared in California, Colorado, Idaho, and Louisana. And the outcome of these power struggles could have a major impact on the future of solar in the U.S.
Today’s solar industry is puny – it supplies less than 1 percent of the electricity in the U.S. – but its advocates say that solar is, at long last, ready to move from the fringe of the energy economy to the mainstream. Photovoltaic panel prices are falling. Low-cost financing for installing rooftop solar is available. Federal and state government incentives remain generous.
Yet opposition from regulated utilities, which burn fossil fuels to produce most of their electricity, could stop a solar boom before it gets started.
Several utilities, including Arizona Public Service and Denver-based Xcel Energy, have asked their state regulators to reduce incentives or impose charges on customers who install rooftop solar; so far, at least, they aren’t making much headway. A bill in the California legislature, backed by the utility interests would add $120 a year in fees to rooftop solar customers. Source Are there any good reasons why the panel owners shouldn't have to start paying fees for the services they receive? What services? Net metering. The utility has to do work to facilitate that. Doesn't that get done with the regular work to maintain services in the area? You know, the part where fees that everybody pays already cover it? No, net metering creates new costs.
What new costs?
|
On September 05 2013 10:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 09:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2013 09:33 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2013 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2013 09:12 aksfjh wrote:On September 05 2013 07:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 05 2013 07:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Issues of electricity regulation typically play out in drab government hearing rooms. That has not been the case this summer in Arizona, where a noisy argument – featuring TV attack ads and dueling websites – has broken out between regulated utilities and the rooftop solar industry.
An Internet web video attacks the California startup companies that sell rooftop solar systems as the “new Solyndras,” which are spending “hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize their wealthy customers.” Meantime, solar companies accuse Arizona Public Service, the state’s biggest utility, of wanting to “extinguish the independent rooftop solar market in Arizona to protect its monopoly.”
Similar battles about how rooftop solar should be regulated have flared in California, Colorado, Idaho, and Louisana. And the outcome of these power struggles could have a major impact on the future of solar in the U.S.
Today’s solar industry is puny – it supplies less than 1 percent of the electricity in the U.S. – but its advocates say that solar is, at long last, ready to move from the fringe of the energy economy to the mainstream. Photovoltaic panel prices are falling. Low-cost financing for installing rooftop solar is available. Federal and state government incentives remain generous.
Yet opposition from regulated utilities, which burn fossil fuels to produce most of their electricity, could stop a solar boom before it gets started.
Several utilities, including Arizona Public Service and Denver-based Xcel Energy, have asked their state regulators to reduce incentives or impose charges on customers who install rooftop solar; so far, at least, they aren’t making much headway. A bill in the California legislature, backed by the utility interests would add $120 a year in fees to rooftop solar customers. Source Are there any good reasons why the panel owners shouldn't have to start paying fees for the services they receive? What services? Net metering. The utility has to do work to facilitate that. Doesn't that get done with the regular work to maintain services in the area? You know, the part where fees that everybody pays already cover it? No, net metering creates new costs. What new costs?
Managing a power source you can't control, but have to buy, would be a big one.
After thinking about it, net metering also wipes you the fees you normally pay to help maintain the grid. So those costs get externalized to other customers.
The utilities that want to impose the fees do state their case if you look into it.
|
Shit if the saudies are willing to foot the bill im on for it. Croatia was pretty happy we moved on yugoslavia while europe dithered on economic instability there shouldnt be a reason why we can t just split syria up
|
On September 05 2013 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
Shit if the saudies are willing to foot the bill im on for it. Croatia was pretty happy we moved on yugoslavia while europe dithered on economic instability there shouldnt be a reason why we can t just split syria up
Money is one of the least important concerns against the attack. It doesn't change anything.
|
United States43269 Posts
On September 05 2013 10:13 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 09:31 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 07:02 DoubleReed wrote:The Israel Lobby has gotten involved. And politicians are of course scared of the Israel Lobby: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/in-sunlight-at-last-israel-lobby-throws-its-full-weight-behind-obamas-syria-strike.htmlThe Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) issued an Action Alert today to our 45,000 members, calling on them to reach out to their elected officials in the House and Senate, to ask them to support the upcoming resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria.
The Action Alert stressed the moral threshold that has been crossed by Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people.
We also emphasized that it is in America’s vital national interests that we continue to be able to project – in Syria and elsewhere – a credible military deterrent.
J Street is still on the fence. Its last statement, a week ago, condemned what it called Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians and called on the US “and the international community… [to] hold President Assad and all responsible for this heinous crime fully accountable.” I bet J Street comes off the fence.
Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post reports that Chuck Hagel has reached out to the pro-Israel groups for their support and states the bottom line for supporters of Israel: Iran: “there is consensus in the mostly-Democratic pro-Israel community that the Syria vote and Iran are inextricably linked. If so, a ‘no’ vote would be catastrophic.” And btw, please refer to it as the Israel Lobby, not the Jewish Lobby. That can be pretty offensive to Jewish Americans. If they call themselves the Republican Jewish Coalition then I should be allowed to call them jews. You realize you just flipped what I said, right? While Israel Lobby are mostly Jews, American Jews are not Israeli. You said the former, I said the latter. American Jews are Americans. Calling it the Jewish Lobby can be annoying and frustrating, as it often implies that American Jews put Israel before America.
I have no idea where you're getting this from. If they're American Jews and I identify them as Jews then how am I implying that they are Israelis? Surely the Israel Lobby would imply they're from Israel. Not all Jews are Israelis but all Israelis are Israelis. The Israeli Lobby identifies with a nation, the Jewish Lobby identifies with a religion and ethnic group.
|
On September 05 2013 19:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 10:13 DoubleReed wrote:On September 05 2013 09:31 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 07:02 DoubleReed wrote:The Israel Lobby has gotten involved. And politicians are of course scared of the Israel Lobby: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/in-sunlight-at-last-israel-lobby-throws-its-full-weight-behind-obamas-syria-strike.htmlThe Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) issued an Action Alert today to our 45,000 members, calling on them to reach out to their elected officials in the House and Senate, to ask them to support the upcoming resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria.
The Action Alert stressed the moral threshold that has been crossed by Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people.
We also emphasized that it is in America’s vital national interests that we continue to be able to project – in Syria and elsewhere – a credible military deterrent.
J Street is still on the fence. Its last statement, a week ago, condemned what it called Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians and called on the US “and the international community… [to] hold President Assad and all responsible for this heinous crime fully accountable.” I bet J Street comes off the fence.
Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post reports that Chuck Hagel has reached out to the pro-Israel groups for their support and states the bottom line for supporters of Israel: Iran: “there is consensus in the mostly-Democratic pro-Israel community that the Syria vote and Iran are inextricably linked. If so, a ‘no’ vote would be catastrophic.” And btw, please refer to it as the Israel Lobby, not the Jewish Lobby. That can be pretty offensive to Jewish Americans. If they call themselves the Republican Jewish Coalition then I should be allowed to call them jews. You realize you just flipped what I said, right? While Israel Lobby are mostly Jews, American Jews are not Israeli. You said the former, I said the latter. American Jews are Americans. Calling it the Jewish Lobby can be annoying and frustrating, as it often implies that American Jews put Israel before America. I have no idea where you're getting this from. If they're American Jews and I identify them as Jews then how am I implying that they are Israelis? Surely the Israel Lobby would imply they're from Israel. Not all Jews are Israelis but all Israelis are Israelis. The Israeli Lobby identifies with a nation, the Jewish Lobby identifies with a religion and ethnic group.
"Surely the israel lobby would imply they are from israel."
No,israel is the objective for this lobby (to lobby in favour of israel) it doesnt mean that the lobby neccesarely comes from israel itself.
It are jews from all over the world lobbying for israel, not all american jews are lobbying for israel.
The american jewish lobby is lobbying for the greater good of the jewish population in general, the israel lobby is a sort of sub section of that, lobbying specificly for israel.
At least thats what i think he more or less meant to say, though i might be wrong.
All this is a bit confusing i have to admit lol.
|
On September 05 2013 19:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 10:13 DoubleReed wrote:On September 05 2013 09:31 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 07:02 DoubleReed wrote:The Israel Lobby has gotten involved. And politicians are of course scared of the Israel Lobby: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/in-sunlight-at-last-israel-lobby-throws-its-full-weight-behind-obamas-syria-strike.htmlThe Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) issued an Action Alert today to our 45,000 members, calling on them to reach out to their elected officials in the House and Senate, to ask them to support the upcoming resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Bashar Al-Assad regime in Syria.
The Action Alert stressed the moral threshold that has been crossed by Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people.
We also emphasized that it is in America’s vital national interests that we continue to be able to project – in Syria and elsewhere – a credible military deterrent.
J Street is still on the fence. Its last statement, a week ago, condemned what it called Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians and called on the US “and the international community… [to] hold President Assad and all responsible for this heinous crime fully accountable.” I bet J Street comes off the fence.
Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post reports that Chuck Hagel has reached out to the pro-Israel groups for their support and states the bottom line for supporters of Israel: Iran: “there is consensus in the mostly-Democratic pro-Israel community that the Syria vote and Iran are inextricably linked. If so, a ‘no’ vote would be catastrophic.” And btw, please refer to it as the Israel Lobby, not the Jewish Lobby. That can be pretty offensive to Jewish Americans. If they call themselves the Republican Jewish Coalition then I should be allowed to call them jews. You realize you just flipped what I said, right? While Israel Lobby are mostly Jews, American Jews are not Israeli. You said the former, I said the latter. American Jews are Americans. Calling it the Jewish Lobby can be annoying and frustrating, as it often implies that American Jews put Israel before America. I have no idea where you're getting this from. If they're American Jews and I identify them as Jews then how am I implying that they are Israelis? Surely the Israel Lobby would imply they're from Israel. Not all Jews are Israelis but all Israelis are Israelis. The Israeli Lobby identifies with a nation, the Jewish Lobby identifies with a religion and ethnic group.
Rassy has it right.
The Israel Lobby identifies with more the right wing faction of Israel. That's the lobby that we're talking about.
American Jews are often the most vocal critics of the group.
Edit: Getting back to the politics, the power of the Israel Lobby (namely AIPAC) is similar to the influence of the NRA. It's a big deal. It's exactly the kind of thing that will push us into war against massive public opinion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
seems like the israeli lobby are the sort of people who really do call themselves the jewish lobby, as though they stand for all jews
|
New York Times, Syrian Rebels Execute 7 soldiers
The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men.
The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.
“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.”
The video there shows the coming massacre but censors the actual violence. Just think, we could be helping these guys out. It's a menagerie of islamist (pro-Sharia) groups, terror groups, and moderates. Source: New York Times, pg version of video there too.
|
So let me get this straight, the "most vocal critics of the group" endorse the same action as the "right-wing group" but we have to pretend for political correctness that there is a world of difference between the two? I know you are trying to draw a distinction, but in reality, I don't feel the distinction exists.
|
On September 06 2013 03:27 Livelovedie wrote:
So let me get this straight, the "most vocal critics of the group" endorse the same action as the "right-wing group" but we have to pretend for political correctness that there is a world of difference between the two? I know you are trying to draw a distinction, but in reality, I don't feel the distinction exists.
??? No. American Jews are some of the most vocal critics of the group. They do not endorse the actions of the group. The Israel Lobby represent much of the militaristic pro-Israel right wing crazies (and actually has a good amount of non-Jews in it). American Jews are generally on the left wing liberal side of things. AIPAC is way on the right.
The distinction is actually pretty stark. It's really not just a politically correct thing, although it is also that.
|
On September 06 2013 03:25 Danglars wrote:New York Times, Syrian Rebels Execute 7 soldiersShow nested quote +The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men.
The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.
“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.” The video there shows the coming massacre but censors the actual violence. Just think, we could be helping these guys out. It's a menagerie of islamist (pro-Sharia) groups, terror groups, and moderates. Source: New York Times, pg version of video there too.
Its the whole problem with this conflict. This isnt a civil war of the people trying to depose a dictator and bring democracy, Its one totalitarian faction trying to oust another.
If it wasnt for the whole arab spring and the media portraying this as a fight for freedom we'd be ignoring it or actually helping Assad put it down.
|
Anyone know who the "Lord of the Throne" is?
Skulls for the skull throne? The Iron Throne?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
