dre Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 It's not about what individual bureaucrat's prefer. It's not about bureaucrat's at all. It's about the tax payers and the tax money that subsidizes the city buses. A comparison to "bureaucrat's preferences" and "the taxpayers" is hardly a relevant comparison, to put it mildly. They subsidize public transportation but they arent in any way paying for these ads. In fact... alternate means of generating revenue like selling ad space result in LESS subsidies. Municipalities themseves raise an increasing ammount of money from selling ad space on things like buses, city benches etc. I dont see a problem with it. Furthermore MOST infrastructure is subsidized in some way. US cities help pay for sports arenas for example, and if you went to a baseball game earlier this year you got to see ads paid for by the Committee for Israel urging a US attack on Iran. Whats private and what isnt? The internet has gotten a lot of subsidies as well, does that mean we shouldnt allow ads on there either? And in terms of messages from foreign lobbies this is a pretty mild and uncontraversial one, that states a simple geographical fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 And in terms of messages from foreign lobbies this is a pretty mild and uncontraversial one, that states a simple geographical fact. People can present "facts" all sorts of ways, eh? They can even present them so they give a skewed picture. A false picture. That these ads are uncontroversial is your opinion, and since they have created controversy, wrong. Your comparison to a sports arena isn't applicable as sports arenas aren't "public" as the transit system is. As for the internet, it's a mean of communication, and anyone can promote their viewpoint on it - all in the same place. A bus with an ad has only one viewpoint, and it's in your face. At any rate, comparing a private sports area to public transportation would be like comparing a sports arena to a public school. Obviously if someone wanted to post a prayer in a sports arena it would be allowed - but it wouldn't be allowed in a public school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Thus my reference to The Fonz. Water skiing in his leather jacket?? Really?? How could something so good go so bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 People can present "facts" all sorts of ways, eh? They can even present them so they give a skewed picture. A false picture. That these ads are uncontroversial is your opinion, and since they have created controversy, wrong. Your comparison to a sports arena isn't applicable as sports arenas aren't "public" as the transit system is. As for the internet, it's a mean of communication, and anyone can promote their viewpoint on it - all in the same place. A bus with an ad has only one viewpoint, and it's in your face. At any rate, comparing a private sports area to public transportation would be like comparing a sports arena to a public school. Obviously if someone wanted to post a prayer in a sports arena it would be allowed - but it wouldn't be allowed in a public school. Perhaps some nice bus-sized ads of Munich '72 or the Grand Mufti gassing some Jews. Nah...not controversial...it's jus' facts. His Jihad is murdering innocent athletes at the Olympics. What's yours? How could something so good go so bad? Much like our tolerance to Islam? It also went water skiing in a leather jacket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 So is Canada. Point? Really there is no point. It is just a fact. Some seem upset that it this fact is simply plastered on the side of a bus. **Damn, if it caused that much uproar, I would have funded one that draped over the side of a hi-rise. That ought to piss someone off. **That's what we call a JOKE Rue. Is Israel bigger now than when it was started? Yes. Now, the reasons for it being bigger are something all together and exhaustively 'debated' here in many many many other threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Really there is no point. It is just a fact. Some seem upset that it this fact is simply plastered on the side of a bus. "Facts" can be misleading when taken out of context. Like when someone takes a politician's speech and trims it to just one sound bite, that sounds bad in isolation, but is not what was actually meant if one listened to the thing in context. A map showing Israel getting bigger and bigger, in isolation, tends to imply something. That implication is not correct, it is something taken out of context. And just as someone can be justifiably upset at being quoted out of context, so too can a map shown out of context justifiably anger someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 "Facts" can be misleading when taken out of context. Like when someone takes a politician's speech and trims it to just one sound bite, that sounds bad in isolation, but is not what was actually meant if one listened to the thing in context. A map showing Israel getting bigger and bigger, in isolation, tends to imply something. That implication is not correct, it is something taken out of context. And just as someone can be justifiably upset at being quoted out of context, so too can a map shown out of context justifiably anger someone. Ok how about a map of 1900 Israel and 2000 Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Ok how about a map of 1900 Israel and 2000 Israel. Such a map would show that the state of Israel came to exist during that period. Most of the other countries in its vicinity, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 People can present "facts" all sorts of ways, eh? They can even present them so they give a skewed picture. A false picture. That these ads are uncontroversial is your opinion, and since they have created controversy, wrong. Stating that "Palestine is shrinking" is not a skewed or false picture. Its a verifiable fact and an empyrical truth. In this case you and some others dont like the truth but that does not mean its skewed or false. And they are uncontraversial. In a country with 30+ million people the only people whining about the ads are a couple of special interest groups and some dorks on a message board. If that makes them "contraversial" then EVERYTHING is contraversial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) Stating that "Palestine is shrinking" is not a skewed or false picture. Its a verifiable fact and an empyrical truth. In this case you and some others dont like the truth but that does not mean its skewed or false. And they are uncontraversial. In a country with 30+ million people the only people whining about the ads are a couple of special interest groups and some dorks on a message board. If that makes them "contraversial" then EVERYTHING is contraversial. Once again, we come to the old question: What's a Palestinian? They didn't exist during the Ottoman Empire. Neither Egypt nor Jordan saw fit to honor the Grand Mufti's dream once the 1948 War he started was lost. Something to do with the Mufti assassinating Jordan's king, perhaps? If they become this mythical state that they seek...what will be its point, again? Exporting olives and other veggies? Or will it be dependent on Israeli largess like it is already? None of those maps show that. Nor do they show the sites of the terrorist attacks or invading Arab armies. Edited September 7, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) None of those maps show that. Nor do they show the sites of the terrorist attacks or invading Arab armies. Exactly. As I said, "facts" can be presented in a way as to skew and misrepresent. It's not difficult to do. I disagree with such political views being allowed on any "public" tax-payer subsidized property. Edited September 7, 2013 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Once again, we come to the old question: What's a Palestinian? They didn't exist during the Ottoman Empire. Neither Egypt nor Jordan saw fit to honor the Grand Mufti's dream once the 1948 War he started was lost. Something to do with the Mufti assassinating Jordan's king, perhaps? If they become this mythical state that they seek...what will be its point, again? Exporting olives and other veggies? Or will it be dependent on Israeli largess like it is already? None of those maps show that. Nor do they show the sites of the terrorist attacks or invading Arab armies. What's an Isreali? And why did they not exist during that same time frame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 What's an Isreali? And why did they not exist during that same time frame? Exactly. As I said, "facts" can be presented in a way as to skew and misrepresent. It's not difficult to do. I disagree with such political views being allowed on any "public" tax-payer subsidized property. Its not a political view though its a geographical one. If it was accompanies by anti Isreali commentary then maybe you would have a case, and there IS rules regarding overt political ads so it probably would not have been allowed. As for political ads on public property that boat sailed a long time ago. Where I live political candidates are allowed to litter the public roads with plastic signs, they are allowed to express their views on public broadcasters, place huge billboards on the road allowance next to the highways. Your outrage is about 20 years late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 What's an Isreali? And why did they not exist during that same time frame? There were these folks called Romans... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Once again, we come to the old question: What's a Palestinian? Why would you come to that question? Its irrelevant. We have millions of people with their own territory that are being kept stateless, and are being slowly and systematically removed from the land they were born on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Your outrage is about 20 years late. "Outrage?" Seriously? Spare me the ignorant drama. I'm expressing my opinion, not outrage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) Why would you come to that question? Its irrelevant. We have millions of people with their own territory that are being kept stateless, and are being slowly and systematically removed from the land they were born on. Oh, yawn. Don't start a war you can't win is my response. When the Arabs held the area from 1948-1967, there was zero rush to form this mythical state called Palestine. Jordan went so far as to annex the so-called West Bank. It ONLY became an issue of the 'poor bedraggled Palestinians' when Israel captured it in yet another war they didn't want. The fact is that rather than accepting their failure, the Arabs keep the 'Palestinians' in camps and enclaves for use as pawns to against Israel. Plus if it's such a BIG ISSUE...where's the outrage over South Viet-Nam? Long gone...captured by invaders...ethnically cleansed...cities renamed. All AFTER the 6 Day War. I'd give the Arabs in the WB a choice. Leave or be part of an expanded Israel. Edited September 7, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Oh, yawn. Don't start a war you can't win is my response. When the Arabs held the area from 1948-1967, there was zero rush to form this mythical state called Palestine. Jordan went so far as to annex the so-called West Bank. It ONLY became an issue of the 'poor bedraggled Palestinians' when Israel captured it in yet another war they didn't want. The fact is that rather than accepting their failure, the Arabs keep the 'Palestinians' in camps and enclaves to keep them as pawns to use against Israel. Plus if it's such a BIG ISSUE...where's the outrage over South Viet-Nam? Long gone...captured by invaders...ethnically cleansed...cities renamed. All AFTER the 6 Day War. I'd give the Arabs in the WB a choice. Leave or be part of an expanded Israel. You must be mistaken. Those were only geographic disputes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Why would you come to that question? Its irrelevant. We have millions of people with their own territory that are being kept stateless, and are being slowly and systematically removed from the land they were born on. ...say now didn't you see this was only a geographic dispute? Lol you are funny Dre. More! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 ...say now didn't you see this was only a geographic dispute? Lol you are funny Dre. More! No I said this particular ad was a geographical statement. Not exactly hooked on phonics are ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Oh, yawn. Don't start a war you can't win is my response. Who started which wars does not have any bearing on whether there should be a palestinian state or not. These wars were fought between Israel and surrounding countries, when the vast majority of people in the occupied terrorities were not even alive yet. And the reality is they are the only ones claiming this land. Even Israel itself only claims a very small portion of the occupied terrorities as its sovereign territory. So given that this land is not Israeli, is not Jordanian, is not Lebanese, is not Egyptian, and none of these countries are asserting any soveriegn claim to it, what sense does it make to keep the millions of people living there stateless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 I'd give the Arabs in the WB a choice. Leave or be part of an expanded Israel. Neither of those are options. Israel will not allow them to be part of Israel, and why would they leave their own land... land they were born on? Your mindset is the exact same as the Arabs that want the jews forced out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Who started which wars does not have any bearing on whether there should be a palestinian state or not. These wars were fought between Israel and surrounding countries, when the vast majority of people in the occupied terrorities were not even alive yet. And the reality is they are the only ones claiming this land. Even Israel itself only claims a very small portion of the occupied terrorities as its sovereign territory. So given that this land is not Israeli, is not Jordanian, is not Lebanese, is not Egyptian, and none of these countries are asserting any soveriegn claim to it, what sense does it make to keep the millions of people living there stateless? Biggus dealus. There are no 'rights to land'. Just your right to defend it. The Arabs haven't understood this or don't want to since they think Spain is theirs as well as Israel. As for your lamenting over Arabs that claim they're somehow different from Arabs a few miles over yonder...Yasser Arafat was Egyptian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) Neither of those are options. Israel will not allow them to be part of Israel, and why would they leave their own land... land they were born on? Your mindset is the exact same as the Arabs that want the jews forced out. They most certainly are. I'm not forcing anybody out. Read what I posted. Israel, unlike your buddies re: Jews, allows Muslims to live inside Israel as FULL...non-dhimmi...citizens. Edited September 7, 2013 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) As for political ads on public property that boat sailed a long time ago. Where I live political candidates are allowed to litter the public roads with plastic signs, they are allowed to express their views on public broadcasters, place huge billboards on the road allowance next to the highways. Your outrage is about 20 years late. "Where [you] live" doesn't set the standard for the rest of the world, and in many places, political ads aren't allowed on public property. Edited September 7, 2013 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.