BTW, when's the last time the Rep. party has run a Jew or a Catholic for president or VP? Don't you wonder why that is? You think there are no rich Jews or Catholics in the country?
It never crossed my mind. It looks like you gave it some thought. Why is it?
Well, you know what Joe.......when supporting something, I want to make sure it reflects my values......apparently that's not your concern. Nonetheless, I would look into this issue.....you might gain some new insight into this party you so firmly embrace.
Re: There are some people who have to chose between sending a check to the IRS and having their kids cavities fixed, but the number of these people caught in the middle is decreasing, since more and more people are getting a free ride.
Actually less and less......last year, welfare rolls were the lowest they been in 20 years.
That's a step in the right direction. But I was not talking about complete free-loaders. I was talking about people who, while not being free-loaders, are not pulling their weight, who contribute nothing to running of the government, police, defense, highways, street lights, schools etc.
My God, they are a small minority......the few scheckels they cost us are not worth the argument.
I am sorry but Stalin was conservative........so was Krushchev. Would you prefer I use that term instead of right wing.
Getting better. First it was right wing = personification of evil, now it is conservative = evil. That's another "independent" observation.
Typically, a dictatorsip like any other gov't is either left of center, right of center or in the middle. USSR's was right of center. But you know what, Joe, have it whatever way you want it. If you want to be in some weird daNile, then go for it.
It was the Egyptians and the Syrians, and belatedly Jordan who were the aggressors, not the Palestinians. As a result, Israel seized Gaza from Egypt, the Golan Hts from Syria and the WB from Jordan.
Are you saying that Palestinians did not take part? It seems unlikely. Maybe I need to read more on the subject.
The initial attacks were promulgated by Syria and Egypt.
You have it turned around........after WW II, Jordan was given control of the WB, Syria the Golan Hts. and Egypt, the Gaza Strip. During the 1947-48 conflict, the Palestinians were pushed into the WB and Gaza as refugees. Later, after the 1967 War when they took those lands away from Jordan and Egypt, the Israelis began to settle in those territories.
I think I said the same thing as you did, just using different rhetoric, using my pro-Israel bias, and you responded saying the same thing with a slightly anti-Israel, pro Palestinian bias.
Actually, not really that bias, but anti-rich bias, pro-poor or pro-(apparent) victim bias.
How that paragraph reflects a bias of any sort is beyond me. When I wrote it, I did so specifically with the intent of not showing favor to either side. But read into it what you want......you will any way.
So there is no need to go back to Adam and Eve; however, I think a good starting point is the arrival of Zionists to the region. After all, the Zionists were the founders of Israel.
Sounds fair. But for how long should that remain the starting point? From when do we take the existance of Israel, and its right to exist where it is as a status quo, and move to a new starting point?
What is this a p*ssing contest or an effort to get to the bottom of a problem and then resolve the issues? Maybe this is why the Israelis and the Palestinians not able to resolve their differences.
From what I can see, the current mess in Israel/Palestine began when the Zionists began to settle the region......that's why I consider it the beginning point for the region's latest saga but if you have a better one, then go for it.
I think after 50+ years, it is about the time to move forward. There must be something about the date you picked that has a significance (other than just fitting your argument).
Right! It makes the Palestinians look like saints and the Israelis look like heathen. Albert will tell you.......I am down on the Israelis and will do anything to make the Palestinians look good.
How did the Palestinian leadership have this power to keep Sharon away?
By simply simply not starting the current round of terrorism. They could have had Palestinian state by now, in WB and Gaza. Barak would still be the president, Sharon would still be sitting on a back bench om Parliament, giving his warnings about how it is a mistake to trust Arafat and how it is all going to fall apart one day.
And maybe the latest intifada would not have started had Sharon not allowed the Christian Lebanese to go into the Palestianian camps located in Lebanon, and rape and slaughter the refugees there........or did you think there was not blame on both sides for the current mess?
ted |
