Thursday, April 18, 2013
White Pitcher: “Obama Gonna Take Our Guns Away, Man”
(www.politico.com)
“Today’s day and age has gotten so crazy. Shoot man, Obama wants to take our guns from us and everything. You got all this stuff going on; it’s just a little bit insane for me, man. I’m not sure how to take it.”
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 57 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last ›And Avi Lieberman is one of them, and Bibi Netenyahu serves their interest in much the same way John Boehner has served the Teaper interests to date.
Alaska is connected to the U.S. by sea. I don't know of any case where a nation was divided into two slices with no land or sea connections between the two (ignoring a handful of tiny exclaves in border regions of places like Switzerland and Spain).
I have relatives who lived in Danzig, and they weren't German. Nor were they Polish. They were Kashubs, who formed a political plurality in the region of the later Polish corridor. Of course, neither the Germans nor the Poles recognized the Kashubs as a real people, to the detriment of the Kashubs ... unless, of course, it was to their advantage (I read a German book written in the 1920s lamenting the injustice of having lost the territory of West Prussia, because it's population was 30% German and 40% Kashubish -- "who are Germans, of course!". Yeah, right...
It's not just you.
Given they were a relatively sane country stuck between Germany and the Soviet Union, the optimal borders of Poland were "as big as freaking possible."
http://www.investors.com/image/RAMFclr-110311-unesco-IBD.jpg
Netanyahu's actions make a two-state peace-process more difficult.
That is what the cartoon is saying. Is that somehow offensive?
Not defending Hamas in any way, but its shocking how rarely its pointed out that the Likud charter explicitly rejects the creation of a Palestinian state. Of course, Netanyahu has said he supports one, but Khaled Meshaal has said he would agree to a peace based on '67 borders. Don't think I really believe either of them.
Yes, because the cartoon calls his actions 'an error'.
Of course it's no error on his part - it's a strategic choice, like throwing a waste pitch instead of a strike on an 0-2 count.
No. At least not recently.
NYT, 12/8/12:
The governing Likud coalition clearly has minimal interest in advancing any form of Palestinian state, though. Go go Ramat Shlomo!
Not sure how, even if that's true, it makes the cartoon offensive.
Not defending Hamas in any way, but its shocking how rarely its pointed out that the Likud charter explicitly rejects the creation of a Palestinian state. Of course, Netanyahu has said he supports one, but Khaled Meshaal has said he would agree to a peace based on '67 borders. Don't think I really believe either of them.
Hamas has become more popular among Palestinians because they have lost faith in Fatah to further their cause. I think it's fair to say that Israel's historical dealings with Fatah have made many Palestinians believe that Fatah will never be able to achieve anything of importance as the ruling party.
Well its all on how far back you go no innt? Since the teotonic knights were there crusading against Lithuanian pagans.
It's not Chrome. It's the image at the top fixing the column with combined with the size of your screen, resolution, and browser zoom (people will get this problem at different column widths based on those factors). Usually it happens when people make liberal use of the code tag in the comments.
You can use ctrl and - to reduce the browser zoom level (ctrl and + to zoom back in), but this will reduce the size of the text as well.
Edit: If you have Adblock, you can right click on the image, and add a filter to block the image from displaying.
No, an independent Gaza is pretty hopeless - it remains more or less a refugee camp in that case, too many people, too little land, and too little to do with it. That's not as true of the West Bank, though I'm not really sure it's viable either. A three state solution (Israel/Egypt/Jordan - i.e., the 1948 - 1967 situation) is the most practical solution, but it's wildly unfeasible. As noted above, the only feasible solution is the continued slow push out of Palastinians, followed by waiting long enough for everyone to stop caring. Data from America/Canada/Australia suggests this begins after ~100 years, and is complete by ~400 years, but it's not clear that situation is totally applicable here. I don't know a better case, though.
If you think Singapore is a viable comparison to Gaza, I have some waterfront property on Baffin island to sell you for half what it costs in Miami.
Some folks are offended if you suggest that Israel is even vaguely capable of doing anything wrong.
See what I mean? This isn't in the same zip code as being right. Lieberman is not at all one of them. That's like saying that because the religious right was anti-communist, and Barry Goldwater was anti-communist, he must have been a member of the religious right. just because you think religious people are crazy and 'settlers' are crazy doesn't mean that they are the same people. Lieberman is a Soviet immigrant. That's an entirely different electoral group in Israel.
Most 'settlers' are not religious, most single-issue religious voters do not have the settlements as their single issue, and settlements and outposts are not the same thing.
Wrong. Again. As usual.
I didn't say they were the "same people." I said they had the same political goals. Avi Lieberman's goal is the elimination of Palestinians and any hope of a Palestinian state. Avi Lieberman's goal is "Greater Israel." The fact that he may, or may not be, a religious nutjob like the settler movement doesn't change the fact that he is aligned with those folks for political aims.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised when you split hairs like this, pretending that self-ID trumps voting behavior and policy goals. After all, you repeatedly claim to be something other than a right wing Republican yourself.
Is a nuclear armed bully currently blockading Singapore?
Slink away now that you've admitted that your comparison is stupid.
No, that it has nothing from which to build. Singapore has numerous advantages, and was built up organically. Gaza really has no advantages, and was built by herding people to undesirable land. The Palastinians would probably be better off on Baffin Island, where there's at least money to be made from mining and fishing. Canada might go for it. Or they might not notice until it's too late.
Over all these years, I never considered the possibility that you couldn't actually read. Interesting.
I intensely dislike a lot of what Israel does (and the ultra-orthodox are complete nutters), but I can't honestly say that if I faced the kind of existential threat they do, I would act any better than the Israelis.
well your answer was ambiguous-
he said,
you said,
Your answer could mean,
No, I don't even read the Nation, or
No, I read others things besides the Nation, or
No, I do not need to read anything besides the Nation
Dave, being a lawyer, noticed the ambiguity and applied the principal of contra proferentem, which basically means that if someone drafts an ambiguous statement you can construe it against that person so long as your alternative construction is reasonable.
Of course, I'm more likely to marry Eva Mendes than see either of those things happen.
Of course, I'm more likely to marry Eva Mendes than see either of those things happen.
An easier solution would be for Jordan to accept the Palestinians as citizens in exchange for much of the West Bank, and probably a large financial settlement from the UN.
Then you'd have a real gov't that would have a chance of stamping out terrorism, and a gov't that would actually be afraid of Israeli retaliation.
Total. It would become part of Jordan.
Edit: another good feature to make a workable settlement would be for Jordan to establish some kind of "sanctuary region" for Arab Christians, who are being persecuted and driven out of the Arab world. It would give the Hashemite monarchy another potential support base to counter the Palestinian and Islamist blocks, and would help garner world support for Jordan.
If you excluded East Jerusalem, I suspect you could convince most Israelis to go for it, and force out the settlers. Without that ... maybe not.
There is no possible just solution to the Palestinian situation as long as a sizeable and influential segment of the Jewish/Israeli world supports the destruction of Palestine.
You also don't have to force all the settlers out. It doesn't have to be a exact transfer of the currently defined West Bank. You want to give Israel and Jordan a defensible reasonable frontier.
I intensely dislike a lot of what Hamas does (and the ultra-orthodox are complete nutters), but I can't honestly say that if I faced the kind of existential threat they do, I would not act better than the Palestinians.
I am familiar with David's common tactics to wrapping himself in legalistic parsing to avoid honest debate. It's not a new trick for him. No one with a passing familiarity with me would have honestly misread my statement above. David is parsing, because lawyers gotta hide behind something to prevent folks from noticing their lack of intellectual robes.
Sure, if you cede the entire fight, I'm sure most Israelis would sign up for that.
Except no sizeable or influential segment of the Israeli population supports driving Arabs out of the region, or even the West Bank. The radical Arab/Islamists have a genocidal agenda that the Israeli's lack.
I suppose I'd be perfectly happy to tell them "Feel free to leave, or feel free to become Jordanians."
I see no reasonable interpretation under which East Jerusalem is the entire fight. A solution that's far better for the Palastinians than the status quo is certainly not them giving away everything.
You mean except the Settler movement, which runs the entire right wing policy goal setting process, which is strongly supported by the majority government of Israel, from Lieberman through Netenyahu?
Do you honestly expect the Palestinians to cede their claim to Jerusalem as a shared capitol?
Anything that doesn't give the Palestinians/Arabs control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque is a non-starter.
Page 2 of 57 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.