[Spliffdaddy]

I couldn't find the picture of Jenna kissing that hot chick at the bar. Seems it's been upstaged by the Jenna's 'bush' pic.

ah well. It was a fair trade.

my apologies for derailing this thread.

[red rocket]

I thought Jenna Bush was reasonably attractive when her idiot of a father first got into office, but now I think she looks like a fat, stupid cow. Honestly, even Laura is more attractive (not that that's saying much).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

I don't care what anybody thinks about my opinion.

I know, and it really doesn't matter much to me either. But, I'm more curious about what Abe thinks.

He seems to feel that the Bush girls should be left alone from criticism because they've stayed away from the politics. Yet, his lack of condemnation for your criticism of Chelsea Clinton suggests that he supports your criticism of her, telling me that he thinks it's ok to criticize the children of Democratic Presidents but not those of Republican Presidents.

[Spliffdaddy]

Technically it isn't OK to criticize anybody's children. Yet the children of *all* presidents seem to be criticized. The Bush twins certainly recieve more criticism than the Amy Carter or Chelsea Clinton combined. But that's likely an innocent byproduct of the internet age - which was virtually nonexistent before Dubya took office in 2000.

[BRussell]

A column in National Review was written all about Chelsea Clinton:

I hate Chelsea Clinton.

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, "clan liability".

Yup, he says he hates Chelsea, and uses as justification the fact that Stalin and Hitler called it criminal to belong to the family of an enemy.

John McCain: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

Three days after Clinton's election, Rush Limbaugh on his TV show: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" And he showed a picture of Chelsea.

These are the leading conservative voices in the country.

[marden]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

A column in National Review was written all about Chelsea Clinton:





Yup, he says he hates Chelsea, and uses as justification the fact that Stalin and Hitler called it criminal to belong to the family of an enemy.

John McCain: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

Three days after Clinton's election, Rush Limbaugh on his TV show: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat; Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?" And he showed a picture of Chelsea.

These are the leading conservative voices in the country.

I officially recommend that no one watch the Rush Limbaugh TV show, that they censure John McCain and that you send letters of condemnation of that National Review piece!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I know, and it really doesn't matter much to me either. But, I'm more curious about what Abe thinks.

He seems to feel that the Bush girls should be left alone from criticism because they've stayed away from the politics. Yet, his lack of condemnation for your criticism of Chelsea Clinton suggests that he supports your criticism of her, telling me that he thinks it's ok to criticize the children of Democratic Presidents but not those of Republican Presidents.

From the Conservative view:

Everyone says or does things that are out of character occasionally. Spliffdaddy, unlike liberals, has a sense of propriety and he lives within the boundaries of HIS principles.

From the Liberal view:

I think it's probably best if you all just thought of Spliffdaddy as you would a protected animal species, like a Florida Panther. You stand back and just appreciate his nature. Even if he attacks your favorite dog his behavior is tolerated because when he's gone we aren't going to see his likes again soon.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

A column in National Review was written all about Chelsea Clinton:

And I thought I lacked class.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by marden 

No one would object to your ogling them or saying nice, complimentary things, but criticism is a no no, I'd think.

I didn't criticze them you nutjob. Learn how to read correctly.

[Taliesin]

Can't Ahmadinejad's comments regarding Israel be interpreted as a declaration of war?

Obviously Iran's leader is upbeat about Israel's inablity to destroy Hezbollah and views that according to his religious beliefs as a divine sign that Israel's days are counted.

Fortunately the power of that maniac is pretty restricted by the mullahs, but the question is what do the powers behind him want and think?

Taliesin

[marden]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I didn't criticze them you nutjob. Learn how to read correctly.

You want to get reported? I'll gladly oblige you. Say it again. Go ahead, make my day.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Can't Ahmadinejad's comments regarding Israel be interpreted as a declaration of war?

They could, but Israel knows full well that if they did anything, the world would be slow in condemning Iran and fast in condemning Israel.

Honestly, Iran's backing of HizbAllah could have also been considered an act of war, but Israel is waiting for something that the rest of the world will not be able to hold against them. And even then, the chattering people who justify or excuse Israel's enemies will find a way to complain about how if Israel didn't exist, neither would any of these problems. How simple it all would be...

Obviously Iran's leader is upbeat about Israel's inablity to destroy Hezbollah and views that according to his religious beliefs as a divine sign that Israel's days are counted.

Fortunately the power of that maniac is pretty restricted by the mullahs, but the question is what do the powers behind him want and think?

Taliesin

Let's see: tell everyone that it's not weapons, it's for energy. Reject or stonewall the Europeans, or agree and then break the agreements to hold off on development.

Then use North Korean missiles against Israel. Then attend the July 4th missile test in NK. Then continue to talk about Israel's days being numbered.

Write letters to Merkel in Germany talking about how they share a common enemy in that pesky Israel, intimating that they should work together to solve the problem once and for all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

It's not about one person. Meaning it's not about Bush, Blair or Achmadinejad. It's about the general policies conducted by each nation.

You claim this above, but those who are actually DOING IT claim differently. You need to talk to them and fill them in on what they want.

Nothing American can do or change, cept convert will stop this.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by marden 

You want to get reported? I'll gladly oblige you. Say it again. Go ahead, make my day.

Report me all you want. Your MPD is not my fault. Also, I'm only pointing out the obvious.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Remove that threat and the ME people can start dealing with the next set of problems they face. That next threat is people like Achmadinejad.


(I hope you understand what I mean. )

really ? so if Israel goes, Serbia, Kashmir, Cyprus, E.Timor, Chechnya all of a sudden become peaceful little places ? my guess is If israel is wiped off (which will never happen), the attention would be moved to some other geographic section of the planet which muslims feel is theirs and theirs alone.

And the chimp in charge of Iran will be a hero and lead them to it.

You are truely naive if you think it would all stop after Israel, which is exactly why Israel needs to exist. to show these tyranical fascist governments(and people) of Muslim countries that they cannot continue to persecute non-muslims around the world the way they still do today after hundreds of years.

[Sky Captain]

That threat=Evil Joozs on Moozlem soil.

[yakkiebah]

The policies of Israel seem to affect Muslims worldwide, whether they're from the Iceland, Indonesia or Iran. Many of them say the same thing. And if it isn't Israel it's the west. But when 200.000 people get killed and 2 million displaced in Sudan it seem to affect almost nothing or no one. Even if Israel is as evil as they say, it's still quite telling.

[art_director]

There's blood on the hands of each side in the Isreali conflict. Both countries / peoples are at fault. Until a sober voice enters the arena the bloodshed will continue.

People are foolish.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by art_director 

There's blood on the hands of each side in the Isreali conflict. Both countries / peoples are at fault. Until a sober voice enters the arena the bloodshed will continue.

People are foolish.

Another mushy-headed leftist finds moral equivalence between Israel's struggle for survival and the forces pledged to its annihilation. All too typical.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Another mushy-headed leftist finds moral equivalence between Israel's struggle for survival and the forces pledged to its annihilation. All too typical.

Not anymore typical than another hardheaded rightist embroiled in selfrighteous black-and-white-thinking.

But then my own reply is pretty typical of well me, omg, I can't escape the typicalities, omg I can't escape me!

Taliesin

[Big Mac]

I'm not self-righteous. I do, however, have a strong set of ethics, which allow me to make unequivocal judgments about certain things. Some topics are better viewed as shades of grey, but this isn't one of them.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Oh you mean defending against destruction.

It's kinda like parking your car in someone else's front yard, and then getting angry when they try and get it towed away.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac 

It's kinda like parking your car in someone else's front yard, and then getting angry when they try and get it towed away.

Not at all.

When the nations of the world agree that the land the car is parked on belongs to the owner of the car and arrange for it to be so through eminent domain, and the owner of the car succeeds in defending the parking space from attack, even though he was willing to negotiate over it prior days, before being attacked.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Another mushy-headed leftist finds moral equivalence between Israel's struggle for survival and the forces pledged to its annihilation. All too typical.

Are you arguing that intentionally targeting civilians for death is sometimes a moral action? Israel is not morally equivalent to its enemies in most respects, but it's not innocent either.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by goMac 

It's kinda like parking your car in someone else's front yard, and then getting angry when they try and get it towed away.

Let me put this into perspective.
Jews immigrated into what is now Israel.
The Arab people grumbled then turned violent.
And have been violent ever since.

Mexicans immigrate into the US.
But yet no bombs are going off.

Why?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Mexicans immigrate into the US.
But yet no bombs are going off.

Why?

We're a country of immigrants?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Let me put this into perspective.
Jews immigrated into what is now Israel.
The Arab people grumbled then turned violent.
And have been violent ever since.

Mexicans immigrate into the US.
But yet no bombs are going off.

Why?

We need cheap labor?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Let me put this into perspective.
Jews immigrated into what is now Israel.
The Arab people grumbled then turned violent.
And have been violent ever since.

Mexicans immigrate into the US.
But yet no bombs are going off.

Why?

Because Mexicans have not tried to declare a country in the middle of the US?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Because Mexicans have not tried to declare a country in the middle of the US?

Been to Sourthen California lately?

[Sky Captain]

Or perhaps we have other agendas. Like working, living and such.

So far the Mexican innigrants have assimilated into American society.
And choose to live peacfully among us.
There is no on going violence to warrant a Mexican Immigrant state.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you arguing that intentionally targeting civilians for death is sometimes a moral action? Israel is not morally equivalent to its enemies in most respects, but it's not innocent either.

I challenge the assertion that Israel targets civilians. What proof do you have of the targeting of civilians? Are these "civilians" individuals who should more properly be called terrorists?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Not at all.

When the nations of the world agree that the land the car is parked on belongs to the owner of the car and arrange for it to be so through eminent domain, and the owner of the car succeeds in defending the parking space from attack, even though he was willing to negotiate over it prior days, before being attacked.

I'm surprised a Libertarian such as you would support a community voting on putting someone's car on someone else's lawn against their will.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I challenge the assertion that Israel targets civilians. What proof do you have of the targeting of civilians? Are these "civilians" individuals who should more properly be called terrorists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeti...banon_conflict for just one conflict.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Arabs are completely innocent. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to put Israel on a pedestal when clearly both sides are fighting in the mud.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm surprised a Libertarian such as you would support a community voting on putting someone's car on someone else's lawn against their will.

He said it wasn't their "lawn," which it wasn't. Clearly, when it comes to this subject you have a reading comprehension problem. I was going to tear apart your analogy myself, but then I realized it would do you no good to read the truth. I can't help a person who is vying to be in the lead as the biggest Jew-hater on the forum.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for just one conflict.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Arabs are completely innocent. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to put Israel on a pedestal when clearly both sides are fighting in the mud.

The best you can come up with is Wikipedia? Color me unimpressed and unpersuaded. Your opinions are as clear as mud, but that's about it.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

So what's Europe gonna do about this problem?

Americans can't do anything right, so don't look to us for a solution.

The current administration certainly can't do anything right. But don't generalize Bush's incompetence, idiocy and corruption to all Americans.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm surprised a Libertarian such as you would support a community voting on putting someone's car on someone else's lawn against their will.

Actually, the owner is the owner of the parked car. He exerted his property rights, and the rest of the world confirmed it, rather than granting through eminent domain. He then defended his property rights when they were assaulted, and successfully defended them repeatedly, even though he offered to negotiate first. Since being assaulted, he has no reason to revert to negotiation but does anyway out of a sense of devotion to ending the whole nonsense. But the party that attacked before keeps on attacking. What is left, but to defend property rights?

Basically, you made a really lousy analogy, and I can follow it to its conclusion any number of ways, but it still is a lousy analogy that you gave birth to.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, the owner is the owner of the parked car. He exerted his property rights, and the rest of the world confirmed it, rather than granting through eminent domain.

Rightfully and legitimately owned after buying by jews is and was about 7% of what comprises Israel today.
Internationally recognized and legitimised as part of modern Israel is the Israel within the pre 67-borders.
The rest that is currently still part of Israel is illegaly occupied.

Taliesin

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, the owner is the owner of the parked car. He exerted his property rights, and the rest of the world confirmed it, rather than granting through eminent domain. He then defended his property rights when they were assaulted, and successfully defended them repeatedly, even though he offered to negotiate first. Since being assaulted, he has no reason to revert to negotiation but does anyway out of a sense of devotion to ending the whole nonsense. But the party that attacked before keeps on attacking. What is left, but to defend property rights?

Basically, you made a really lousy analogy, and I can follow it to its conclusion any number of ways, but it still is a lousy analogy that you gave birth to.

Clearly the solution is car-pooling.

[yakkiebah]

carpooling will fail with so many carjackers.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Rightfully and legitimately owned after buying by jews is and was about 7% of what comprises Israel today.
Internationally recognized and legitimised as part of modern Israel is the Israel within the pre 67-borders.
The rest that is currently still part of Israel is illegaly occupied.

Taliesin

Except that what you say is internationally recognized and legitimized isn't so recognized- it isn't a border, it's a cease-fire line. Hamas refuses to recognize it as a border, or legitimate. Neither does Iran, or Syria.

And how did we get to the 1967 cease-fire line? Because Egypt, Jordan, Syria decided it was a good time to attack and rid the world of Israel, because they didn't recognize it, and didn't see legitimacy.

Let's go back to the very bad car park analogy of goMac:

If the owner of a car parks where he has a legitmate claim to park, and pays to park beforehand, and negotiates with the parking lot beforehand,

and someone believing the parking spot is theirs attacks the car and owner, it damages the claim and legitimacy of the attacker.

If the car owner cordons a safe area around the spot in order to secure his safety and that of his property (car), and he occupies that space by laying down a blanket and cooler and having a picnic,

and the attacker persists in attacking,
and insists on returning to a day when the parked car wasn't there,
insists that the owner of the car never paid,
insists that the owner of the car will be pushed into the lake adjoining the car park,
and when the owner repeatedly attempts to negotiate with the attacker, is repeatedly attacked,

well, internationally recognized and legitimacy don't mean much.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Let's go back to the very bad car park analogy of goMac:

If the owner of a car parks where he has a legitmate claim to park, and pays to park beforehand, and negotiates with the parking lot beforehand,

and someone believing the parking spot is theirs attacks the car and owner, it damages the claim and legitimacy of the attacker.

If the car owner cordons a safe area around the spot in order to secure his safety and that of his property (car), and he occupies that space by laying down a blanket and cooler and having a picnic,

and the attacker persists in attacking,
and insists on returning to a day when the parked car wasn't there,
insists that the owner of the car never paid,
insists that the owner of the car will be pushed into the lake adjoining the car park,
and when the owner repeatedly attempts to negotiate with the attacker, is repeatedly attacked,

well, internationally recognized and legitimacy don't mean much.

What if the car was stolen in the first place?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

What if the car was stolen in the first place?

The car ownership isn't up for debate. The parking spot is. Try and keep up.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The car ownership isn't up for debate. The parking spot is. Try and keep up.

Slam dunk™.

(the new Smackdown™, but only during Basketball season)

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The car ownership isn't up for debate. The parking spot is. Try and keep up.

Hmmm ok. Perhaps it was discovered the Parking lot is an illegal structure and must be demolished and rezoned to make way for a strip mall?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Slam dunk™.

(the new Smackdown™, but only during Basketball season)

Who's your team?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Who's your team?

The TN Volunteers (college) and the Memphis Grizzlies (Pro).

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

The TN Volunteers (college) and the Memphis Grizzlies (Pro).

Gotta tell ya, I don't see a good year looming for the Griz. But that's getting way off-track, so I'll just say PM me if you actually care to talk NBA.

(Duke & Raptors fan myself. Yes, Toronto is probably in for a long year themselves)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Dakar� 

Gotta tell ya, I don't see a good year looming for the Griz. But that's getting way off-track, so I'll just say PM me if you actually care to talk NBA.

(Duke & Raptors fan myself. Yes, Toronto is probably in for a long year themselves)

My hopes rest with the Vols for a good season, the Griz are toast, more than likely. It's great to see what Bruce Pearl is doing with them, they've made a complete 180 in the last year.

(ok, no more OT posts)

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Hmmm ok. Perhaps it was discovered the Parking lot is an illegal structure and must be demolished and rezoned to make way for a strip mall?

The owner of the spot gets a say in this. He owns it, it can't just be declared illegal and that word have any meaning. That's like declaring the existance of Kenya to be illegal. It doesn't make much sense.