The Democrat Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Depending on the type of package he puts together...yes, you'll be able to. This package will make the economy his almost as much as the new deal did for FDR. If he screws this up by wasting it on poorly-designed, impossible-to-implement, low-multiplier business tax cuts...then if it turns out not to be enough to avoid the deflationary spiral that is still on the horizon, then he'll deserve a majority of the blame for that, because he'll have wasted his best shot.

And still, you can't really say how it worked out right away. Nothing in the 2009 economy should really be on Obama's doorstep, good or bad. Even a gigantic stimulus/jobs/energy package won't come to fruition right away. Just can't happen.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

How about Greenspan bubble #1?

That's part of the story. US consumers, though, carry the biggest blame.

 

[bmags]

hahaha

TPM

 

"You gotta love the candidates for RNC chair.

 

Gay-rights activist and talk-radio host Michelangelo Signorile has posted an amusing piece of audio of Ken Blackwell during the Republican National Convention, telling Signorile that homosexuality is a compulsion that can be "restrained," and he's quite confident he would be able to suppress it within himself -- though of course he's never had any sort of problem like that.

 

"I've never had to make the choice because I've never had the urge to be other than a heterosexual," Blackwell said, "but if in fact I had the urge to be something else I could have in fact suppressed that urge.""

[Balta1701]

Given where the Israeli thread has gone, I'm going to post this here rather than there. I think there's pretty much no defense for this. Arabs make up 1/6 of the Israeli population right now, give or take. After a vote today, the 2 parties that typically gain the votes of that block have been banned from running in the upcoming Israeli elections. Hopefully this doesn't last in the Israeli courts at all. The last thing we need is for the Jewish state to officially start enforcing racial politics.

The Central Elections Committee (CEC) yesterday banned the Arab parties United Arab List-Ta'al and Balad from running in next month's parliamentary elections amid accusations of racism from Arab MKs. Both parties intend to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

 

Members of the CEC conceded yesterday that the chance of the Supreme Court's upholding the ban on both parties was slim.

 

Arab faction delegates in the CEC walked out of the hall before the vote, shouting, "this is a fascist, racist state." As they walked out, CEC deputy chairman MK David Tal (Kadima) and the Arab delegates pushed each other and a Knesset guard had to intervene and separate them.

Advertisement

The CEC voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motions, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

The requests to ban the Arab parties were filed by two ultra right parties Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union-National Religious Party.

 

Senior Labor Party figures lashed out at the party's CEC representative, Eitan Cabel, who voted in favor of banning the two Arab parties.

 

"[MK] Shelly Yachimovich and I thought we must object to the move to ban the Arab lists for reasons of freedom of expression," said Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog. "The minority's right to be heard must be preserved," he said.

 

MK Ophir Pines (Labor) said from overseas that he strongly objected to Labor's stance in the vote and that it was not the position that had been agreed on.

[DukeNukeEm]

Democracy shouldn't be two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner.

[lostfan]

Apartheid ftw

[NorthSideSox72]

Well, I had been relatively supportive of Israel's moves on Hamas. But this is disturbing, and Israel will probably, rightly, lose a bit of their international support over it.

 

[southsider2k5]

Well, I had been relatively supportive of Israel's moves on Hamas. But this is disturbing, and Israel will probably, rightly, lose a bit of their international support over it.

 

Israel doesn't care about foreign support outside of maybe the US. They care only about existing. If they feel that is threatened, they will remove whatever that threat is.

[Soxbadger]

I feel that Israeli Jews are beginning to forget what it is to be a jew and beginning to care more about what it is to be an Israeli.

 

At passover one of the more important lessons is about slavery and that once the Jews were slaves in the land of Egypt.

 

http://www.oyhoo.com/cyberseder/27.html

 

One of the most radical messages of the Torah is that cruelty is not destiny. Though we tend to treat others the way that we ourselves were treated, the message of Torah is that the chain of pain can be broken that we do not have to pass on to others what was done to us. How easy it is, in a time of comfort, to forget the suffering of our past. How easy it is, in an era of affluence, to fail to see the suffering of others. Each year the Seder reminds us that we were once oppressed, and that we can never truly be free until all people everywhere can celebrate their freedom with us.

 

Beyad chazakah ubizroa netuyah... With a strong hand and an outstretched arm. Freedom demands strength, because we must be able to defend our freedom from those who would deny it to us. We must not be passive about freedom. But at the same time freedom also demands that we stretch out our arm to those with whom we differ, that we build bridges to them, and that we promote tolerance and understanding, rather than hatred and discrimination.

 

Today, as well, wherever oppression remains, Jews taste its bitterness

 

You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in Egypt.

 

When strangers reside with you in your land, you shall not wrong them... You shall love them as yourself, for you were strangers in Egypt. You shall rejoice before God with your son and daughter... and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow in your midst.

 

Always remember that you were slaves in Egypt. You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the orphan. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt. Not only our ancestors alone did the Holy One redeem but us as well, along with them, as it is written:

 

"And God freed us from Egypt so as to take us and give us the land promised to our ancestors."

 

One has to ask if the actions of Israeli Jews follows the word of the religion.

 

Thats my biggest problem with all of this, is that we are supposed to rise above it, not sink down into it.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

They care only about existing.

 

That right there is the simplest and most profound statement I have read on this subject. And it could be said for everyone in that region.

[DukeNukeEm]

That right there is the simplest and most profound statement I have read on this subject. And it could be said for everyone in that region.

What?

 

I cannot think of a worse way of classifying the nature of the conflicts in the Middle East. Like pretty much every other war since World War 2 the conflicts in the Middle East are the result of a power vacuum left by decolonization. There are lots of countries in the Middle East in a relatively small area and they all want power.

 

If this were about "just existing" Iraq would never even come to being and Syria/Egypt/<insert ME country here> wouldn't have gone to war with Israel every 4 years up until the early 70's. These countries want to expand influence in the region and they all see each other as threats. Throw in a group like Al Queda who really doesn't give a f*** who they bomb (as long as somebody is gettin' bombed) and the whole thing is going to be a bloodbath until they work something out.

 

Let the Middle East burn, Europe got tired of killing each other and so will they.

Edited January 13, 2009 by DukeNukeEm

[Texsox]

Each country there has felt, and does feel, their very existence is threatened by their neighbors. This isn't a boundary dispute where like where to draw the US-Mexico border, each side wants the other off the map. Serious stuff.

[lostfan]

That right there is the simplest and most profound statement I have read on this subject. And it could be said for everyone in that region.

It's also a dramatic oversimplification at face value, and I don't think 2K5's point was to use that statement to summarize the entire conflict.

[DukeNukeEm]

1) If you pay even cursory attention to Iraq you would understand that the conflict there is pretty much a boundary dispute between 3 ethnic (I use the term loosely) groups. Same goes for Israel and Palestine.

 

2) These countries want each other off the map because they feel each other's existence threatens their ability to expand their own power. It's pretty much the security dilemma except everyone is attacking each other instead of standing off and puffing their chests.

[lostfan]

Well in the case of the actual countries that border Israel, they actually tried attacking Israel and learned that lesson (umm... don't) the hard way, so they stopped. So now they live vicariously through the Palestinians.

[DukeNukeEm]

Well in the case of the actual countries that border Israel, they actually tried attacking Israel and learned that lesson (umm... don't) the hard way, so they stopped. So now they live vicariously through the Palestinians.

Sorta, I dont think Egypt really wants to even interact with Israel after Sadat got capped for negotiating with them.

 

If countries in the Middle East were solely concerned with existing the wars there would all be over tomorrow. Europe came to this realization in 1946 and how many of the major powers there have gone at it since?

[Soxbadger]

The problem with the assertion that they will eventually get tired out, is that they have been fighting for longer than most European countries have been in existence.

 

At the time of the crusades Germany was not even a twinkle in its fathers eye.

 

At the time of Babylon, Jericho, etc Europe was barely recognizable.

 

If time was merely the answer then wouldnt they have stopped fighting at some point, maybe when the Romans burnt down the second temple, maybe when Saladim took Jerusalem, maybe when World War II ended?

 

The problem is its not about existence, its about religion and the idea that you need to have certain religious places under your control in order to please god.

 

Even more specifically the problem is that 1 single place is claimed by 3 major religions, all of them some what believing that they have the true claim and right to the land.

 

There is no valid comparison to Europe.

 

 

[DukeNukeEm]

The problem with the assertion that they will eventually get tired out, is that they have been fighting for longer than most European countries have been in existence.

 

At the time of the crusades Germany was not even a twinkle in its fathers eye.*

 

At the time of Babylon, Jericho, etc Europe was barely recognizable.

 

If time was merely the answer then wouldnt they have stopped fighting at some point, maybe when the Romans burnt down the second temple, maybe when Saladim took Jerusalem, maybe when World War II ended?

 

The problem is its not about existence, its about religion and the idea that you need to have certain religious places under your control in order to please god.

 

Even more specifically the problem is that 1 single place is claimed by 3 major religions, all of them some what believing that they have the true claim and right to the land.

 

There is no valid comparison to Europe.

The Middle East hasn't gone through a war nearly as destructive as World War 1 or World War 2. I dont really care about history going back before 1500 but I dont even think there has been a war in the ME on the level of the Napoleonic, 100 Years or 30 Years wars. WW2 lasted only 6 years but it created the UN and eventually the EU, the kind of IGO that is a sign of a stable region. Length means nothing, it's the severity of the killing.

 

If these wars really are religious, as you claim, it strengthens my point. Religious wars are inherently irrational, meaning there are only two solutions: 1) one side gets annihilated or 2) they get sick of killing each other. Option 1 is hard to pull off so #2 would probably be the best bet.

 

*I'm not falling for your Germany trick either, the United States is older than the German Confederation.

[bmags]

I disagree with you soxbadger. For one, you could say the same about the middle east. At the time of the crusades none of these countries technically existed as today. And further, many of the conflicts in Europe were about religion as well. And even with that statement about 3 major religions, only two of those religions are having conflict, and the religion aspect is a small part of it. While Jerusalem is always going to be a near impossible problem to solve, the main dispute is clearly the creation of israel on top of other peoples homes at the time and them being driven out, and fighting for that homeland. Within Islam, there are major groups fighting amongst each other, but even then its due to mostly historic claims of ancestry to lands and previous powers. So I don't really buy that it's about religion. It's about an undeveloped region feeding off the ignorance of its people by inciting them on others as a means to keep power.

[DukeNukeEm]

And further, many of the conflicts in Europe were about religion as well.

^

 

There's a reason I'm namedropping the 30 years war in every post.

[Balta1701]

If I gave you this list of names and asked you "Which one of these people is deciding how the United States votes on U.N. Security council resolutions?", what would your answer be?

 

1. George W. Bush

2. Dick Cheney

3. Condoleeza Rice

4. Vladimir Putin

5. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

6. Ehud Olmert

 

Make a guess. Please. Who runs our foreign policy?

[DukeNukeEm]

I fear opening that link.

[Soxbadger]

The Middle East hasn't gone through a war nearly as destructive as World War 1 or World War 2.

 

Fact.

 

There is a reason why World War I was called "The War" and that the treaty was signed on 11/11 and why the war was called "the war to end all wars".

 

The problem with your proposition is that within 3 decades of the end of World War I (the most devastating war known to man at the time) came World War II another war that was devastating on an unprecedented parallel.

 

The question is, why was World War I not destructive enough to stop war, where as World War II was?

 

The answer is not that:

 

Europe was fed up with war to the point where it will never fight another war (France fought Vietnam after WWII, USA has fought many countries, GB has fought Argentina over Falklands and so on and so forth)

 

Because if that was the case then no one would have considered the possibility of the Cold War developing into World War III.

 

I dont really care about history going back before 1500 but I dont even think there has been a war in the ME on the level of the Napoleonic, 100 Years or 30 Years wars.

 

Well that is your first problem in the middle east conflict, you dont care about before 1500.

 

The first temple was created in the 10th century BCE, thats 2500 years before the first date that you care about. The first temple was destroyed in 587 by the Babylonians, thats 2000 years before you care about. The second temple was then created by 516 BCE with authorization of the Babylonians. The second temple was subsequently destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans, which is still 1500 years before you care about.

 

During the siege of Jerusalem estimates range that in excess of 1 million people died. (Josephus, War of the Jews.) This is in the year 70 CE.

 

Which brings us to this point:

 

Length means nothing, it's the severity of the killing.

 

And that is the problem when you are dealing with ancient wars, there is no way to estimate the severity of the killing because there are very few records that tell exactly what happened.

 

but I dont even think there has been a war in the ME on the level of the Napoleonic, 100 Years or 30 Years wars.

 

And this goes to the absurdity of the argument.

 

If the 30 years war was such a severe war, then why did Europe continue to fight for the next 300 years?

 

If the 100 years war was such a severe war, then why did Europe continue to fight for another 600 years?

 

If the Napoleonic wars were so severe, why did Europe eventually get into World War I and World War II?

 

The answer to these questions is it is not the severity of the war that impacts whether or not war will happen in the future.

 

Religious wars are inherently irrational, meaning there are only two solutions: 1) one side gets annihilated or 2) they get sick of killing each other. Option 1 is hard to pull off so #2 would probably be the best bet.

 

Thats a terrible simplification.

 

The war itself is not irrational it is in fact very rational and it basically boils down to 1 specific plot of land:

 

The Jews believe that in order to fulfill the will of god they need to rebuild the Temple, the land where the Temple must be built is currently under Muslim control and they therefore can not rebuild it. This is called the Temple Mount, it is the holiest site in Judaism. The third temple can only be built on this site.

 

The Muslims believe that the site is where Muhammad ascended to heaven. In Islam it is called the "Noble Sanctuary" and is the location of the "Dome of the Rock" considered one of the oldest Islamic structures in the world.

 

Many Jews can not and will not rest until the third temple is built, which means the destruction of the current Islamic Mosque and Dome of the Rock. The two sides are at an impossible impasse which neither side can ever truly back down to.

 

This is not like the 30 years war, the 100 years war or any conflict that has existed in European history. This conflict is born at the root of the religions.

 

What incentive is there to stop fighting eachother when losing is worse than death to some?

 

Bmags,

 

I disagree with you soxbadger. For one, you could say the same about the middle east. At the time of the crusades none of these countries technically existed as today. And further, many of the conflicts in Europe were about religion as well.

 

But the conflict was in many ways the same at that time period.

 

The reason I pointed out the longevity is that this specific piece of land has been the center of warfare for in excess of 3000 years. There is no other piece of land that shares such a history of continual conflict. Regions in Europe have changed, the precursors for war have changed, but in Jerusalem they stay the same. It is the promise of god to Moses of a holy land, it is the fall of the first temple which drives the Jewish people, it is the fulfillment of gods prophecy and the rebuilding of the temple which is the end goal.

 

And even with that statement about 3 major religions, only two of those religions are having conflict, and the religion aspect is a small part of it. While Jerusalem is always going to be a near impossible problem to solve, the main dispute is clearly the creation of israel on top of other peoples homes at the time and them being driven out, and fighting for that homeland. Within Islam, there are major groups fighting amongst each other, but even then its due to mostly historic claims of ancestry to lands and previous powers. So I don't really buy that it's about religion. It's about an undeveloped region feeding off the ignorance of its people by inciting them on others as a means to keep power.

 

Well I disagree completely.

 

I mean this is just my personal opinion, but I believe that religion is the number 1 priority of the Jewish state. The importance of Israel to the Jews is it is the land promised to them by god. If it was not for that, Jews would not care. It is a unique situation that can not be compared. No European country believes that its right to exist is predicated in the bible or in religion. It is unique to the Jewish experience, that they as a people believe that they are entitled to a certain piece of land because of the word of god.

 

You say the main dispute is:

 

the main dispute is clearly the creation of israel on top of other peoples homes at the time and them being driven out, and fighting for that homeland

 

But that is only the dispute from the Islamic side.

 

The dispute from the Jewish side is that, the Jews created the first temple to god which was subsequently destroyed, they created the second temple to only have it destroyed and they can never rest until the third and final temple is built. It can only be built in one location, and that location is currently being used as a Muslim Mosque.

 

A Jew who believes in the temple and all of that can never truly be at peace until the temple is rebuilt as the Messiah can only return if the Temple is built.

 

And thus enter the Christians, some of which believe dispensationalist theology (fundamentalist and evangelicals) who believe that in order for the anti-christ, rapture and the rest to appear the Jewish people need to build the third and final temple.

 

So that is the main dispute from the Jewish perspective, it is not about Israel or the homes as my belief is that if the Muslims would allow the creation of the Third Temple that the Jews would be willing to give them tons of other land.

 

http://www.saveisrael.com/segal/segalhistory.htm

 

Youll notice that step 5 is "rebuild the temple."

 

And here is an article from 1967:

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,837052,00.html

 

Since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, in A.D. 70, Conservative and Orthodox Jews have beseeched God four times a week to "renew our days as they once were" — a plea for the restoration of the Temple. Although Zionism was largely a secular movement, one of its sources was the prayers of Jews for a return to Palestine so that they could build a new Temple.

 

For Jews the only way the messiah can come is for the temple to be rebuilt, should it not be rebuilt, God shall never return and no one will ever be able to enjoy heaven on earth.

 

All of this is far more important than Gaza, Golan Heights, or any other piece of land taken by the Israeli's after World War II.

 

The end goal is the creation of the temple, not the creation of Israel.

 

(Edit)

 

So is the reason you dont care about prior to 1500 because thats where the AP Euro book starts? (or at least thats where I remember it starting when I was a Sophomore in HS)

Edited January 14, 2009 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

"Europe was fed up with war to the point where it will never fight another war (France fought Vietnam after WWII, USA has fought many countries, GB has fought Argentina over Falklands and so on and so forth)"

 

Completely beside the point. Obvious to the point of it not even being said, neither of those wars happened between European countries. Clearly, the phrase "Peace in the Middle East" inherently is saying peace...in...the...middle...east. So if Saudi Arabia declares war on Myanmar, that doesn't mean there isn't peace in the middle east.

 

You're claim is that the Middle East is in no way comparable to Europe because of the religious origins of the middle east, and that it's history of fighting is even longer than Europes. I'm sure 100 years ago if you asked someone which region was to be so helpless in perpetual fighting, they'd say without Europe. They've done it forever. Their belief in the righteousness of their country and crown, led to the belief that they deserved all should they manage it. Land = power and money and glory for the country, expansionism shows the Godly superiority of the people and that God is looking down favorably on the country.

 

And so it wasn't just that death they got sick of, it was a realization that these wars were preventing Europe from economic prosperity. While the EU will point to the EU as a symbol of cooperation and their peace, it is their economic deals and cooperation that have led to this 60 years of peace in western europe, with nothing remotely threatening that peace. They realized that war didn't help create trade lines in the modern world, it was destroying them.

 

And so in the MIddle East, the enlightened economic countries we don't speak of. These poor, vastly illiterate are laying claims to ancient land disputes as a way of creating a source of power.

 

And as I hear you lay the religious convictions for Israel, I just don't buy it. I don't buy it when you lay the claims, I don't buy it when I hear Israelis talk about Israel. For one, it comes across as too much chronology. One Jewish professor, not Israeli, when I was in high school talked to us, and gave us this analogy. It's like if you are sitting in a chair at a cafe, and get up to go get cream for your coffee, and you get back and someone is sitting in your chair, do you not have a right to kick them out? For real, that was the analogy, and I'm not saying this analogy is the end all be all and clearly this is the word of the Israelis, this professor, but its somewhat typical in when I hear Israelis talk on the manner too. It always comes across as so chronological. Like that argument is brought out to remind that the Israelis occupied that area once, and so it was given to them by God and necessary to their people. But I'm never convinced that they hold those religious forecasts to a higher plight than that of this was their home, and even if they got removed from it, it is still theirs. And so then you have Palestinians saying the same.

 

Two groups, both with claims to the crown. If that doesn't sound like Europe, I don't know what to tell you.

 

But, if ever these areas develop intellectually and economically, they'll get to the point where they realize how much these wars are costing them in many ways.

 

You know a top reason for murders in general is embarrassment. And one of the reasons youths in the Middle East are so mad is because they feel looked down on by the West and feel anger and embarrassment because they feel that the region should be respected for when it was a thriving economic, scientific and intellectual center of the world. And it is embarrassing when, backed by the west, they can be removed from their land and then beaten so badly. Embarrassment and loss of dignity can be dangerous fuel that can spark some unimaginable results.

 

And it's more than just getting sick of dying. It's the realization that this perpe

[Soxbadger]

bmags,

 

Completely beside the point. Obvious to the point of it not even being said, neither of those wars happened between European countries. Clearly, the phrase "Peace in the Middle East" inherently is saying peace...in...the...middle...east. So if Saudi Arabia declares war on Myanmar, that doesn't mean there isn't peace in the middle east.

 

Well in that case it is true that since World War II European countries have not declared all out war on each other.

 

Not that conflicts have not arisen (especially in Bosnia etc), but as of today there has not been a major war in Europe in over 60 years.

 

You're claim is that the Middle East is in no way comparable to Europe because of the religious origins of the middle east, and that it's history of fighting is even longer than Europes. I'm sure 100 years ago if you asked someone which region was to be so helpless in perpetual fighting, they'd say without Europe. They've done it forever. Their belief in the righteousness of their country and crown, led to the belief that they deserved all should they manage it. Lan

 

d = power and money and glory for the country, expansionism shows the Godly superiority of the people and that God is looking down favorably on the country.

 

My claim is not that it is no way comparable, my claim is that it is much deeper rooted and therefore its much harder for either side to walk away.

 

And so it wasn't just that death they got sick of, it was a realization that these wars were preventing Europe from economic prosperity. While the EU will point to the EU as a symbol of cooperation and their peace, it is their economic deals and cooperation that have led to this 60 years of peace in western europe, with nothing remotely threatening that peace. They realized that war didn't help create trade lines in the modern world, it was destroying them.

 

I also think that its historically significant that after World War II no Western European was the preeminent power. During the time periods where Europe has fought the most brutally with itself, it has generally also had a preeminent power. Whether it be the English Empire, Napolean, Holy Roman Empire, etc each was powerful to the point where it did not really have to answer to anyone because of the how distant the other non-Western European threats.

 

I also agree that they realized they were economically better off working together instead of fighting. I think they saw the power of the USA and USSR and realized that if they didnt want to just be the battlefield in between that they had to work together to regain the power that they had lost due to constant war and decolonization.

 

And as I hear you lay the religious convictions for Israel, I just don't buy it. I don't buy it when you lay the claims, I don't buy it when I hear Israelis talk about Israel. For one, it comes across as too much chronology. One Jewish professor, not Israeli, when I was in high school talked to us, and gave us this analogy. It's like if you are sitting in a chair at a cafe, and get up to go get cream for your coffee, and you get back and someone is sitting in your chair, do you not have a right to kick them out? For real, that was the analogy, and I'm not saying this analogy is the end all be all and clearly this is the word of the Israelis, this professor, but its somewhat typical in when I hear Israelis talk on the manner too. It always comes across as so chronological. Like that argument is brought out to remind that the Israelis occupied that area once, and so it was given to them by God and necessary to their people. But I'm never convinced that they hold those religious forecasts to a higher plight than that of this was their home, and even if they got removed from it, it is still theirs. And so then you have Palestinians saying the same.

 

Two groups, both with claims to the crown. If that doesn't sound like Europe, I don't know what to tell you.

 

But, if ever these areas develop intellectually and economically, they'll get to the point where they realize how much these wars are costing them in many ways.

 

But here is where I disagree.

 

This is not a fight over money or this life, this is a fight about god.

 

This is a fight over the jewish narrative, the story of the chosen people, the story of the first people to believe in the one true god, who for their belief were given a piece of land where they were supposed to build a temple to god, the story of the first temple and its destruction, the story of the second temple and its destruction and finally the store of the third temple being rebuilt.

 

I dont lay claims for anyone, I do not side with either on the argument, I just know what beats in their hearts.

 

From your posts I am going to guess that you are not Jewish, I may be wrong, but I just have a feeling.

 

This is my analogy:

 

Your father is god, on your first birthday he gives you a house and says, as long as you live in my house you will be blessed and you will have heaven in your house. Unfortunately there are no police and you grow up not to be the biggest guy on the block. 25 years later your neighbor comes over ( Babylonians) and decides to burn your house down. You then have to walk around for a while until the Babylonians tell you that you can build your house again. You build your house and live there for another 25 years. Unfortunately while youve been living in your house another person bought all the land its on and has decided to make you pay taxes (Romans). You get upset about that so they come over destroy everything in your house and burn it down. Now for the next 50 years you live on the land where your house once was, but no one will let you rebuild your house (permits etc) so you just sit there and wait. Eventually the people who hand out permits decide that they are going to give a permit to your arch enemy and will let him build a house on your land. You protest, but there is nothing you can do.

 

So they build the house where your house once was, and you can never have heaven on earth because you can not live in the house as god directed.

 

No analogy can ever make sense unless it includes god, because the problem can not be solved with money or wealth, that can never bring the messiah.