Ramallah withdrawal

[Guest]

OK, I would like nothing better than to believe our President is doing the right thing, but he's making it really difficult. We're forcing Israel to withdraw from Ramallah, and release Arafat, so he can go back to his traditional role as a war-mongering hate-breeding media-hound terrorist murderer? Am I missing something here? Just what will the imprisonment of 6 terrorists (under "international civil authority" in a Palestinian prison - and I think we all know how secure those are) accomplish when 40 thousand more remain free, orchestrating suicide bombings and other violence as soon as the pressure lets up on their boss? The last thing Israel should do now is back away. With all due respect to Mr Bush, right now, I would love it if Sharon just flipped him off. Let the IDF force the Palestinian terrorist militias to their knees. Let them crush Arafat's army, and let them arrest Arafat, put him on trial, and exile him for life. Let them negotiate, afterwards, with someone who actually wants peace, and who must accept a reasonable offer because his country and his people have SURRENDERED.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Bush is presently cowtowing to int'l pressure so his assault on Iraq has no opposition.

 

His position, of course, is beyond idiotic. The only way to deal with barbaric sub-humans is via force.

 

Heck, has ANY major conflict really been resolved by just negotiation? I don't know the current U.K/Ireland situation, but I can't think of any other possibilities in recent history.

 

India got their independence not due to Gandhi's demonstrations but because Britain couldn't afford to keep them any longer.

 

Egypt signed a peace deal with Israel only because Israel routed their army and the U.S basically agreed to pay Israel to stop annihilating the Egyptian army (and then gave Egypt some money to make it all look better). Negotiation didn't really end that conflict.

 

Most everything else has had a bloody conflict to resolve the problems.

 

It's time for Bush to realize that we don't NEED the world's approval for our actions. The world has shown, time and again, that it will always support the easy solution over the correct one.

                    -=Mike

[Guest]

Bush is presently cowtowing to int'l pressure so his assault on Iraq has no opposition.

His position, of course, is beyond idiotic.

It is, especially because the assault on Iraq probably won't happen until next year. Does anyone really believe that the Palestinians won't provoke another clash with Israel, thus resulting in even more Arab naysaying over Iraq, for over seven months? It's remarkable if they go seven days without butchering civilians.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote  

Bush is presently cowtowing to int'l pressure so his assault on Iraq has no opposition.

His position, of course, is beyond idiotic.

It is, especially because the assault on Iraq probably won't happen until next year. Does anyone really believe that the Palestinians won't provoke another clash with Israel, thus resulting in even more Arab naysaying over Iraq, for over seven months? It's remarkable if they go seven days without butchering civilians. >>>

 

 

Oh, they'll initiate something. That is Arafat's entire gameplan. Attack, attack, attack until Israel FINALLY responds---then wait for the world's press to drop to their knees and fellate Yassir again with more press like the coverage of the "Jenin massacre".

                        -=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

I completely disagree with releasing Arafat, they would have been doing the world a favor if they had just executed him.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

I would guess that the statement "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" might come into play.

 

But here's what gets me.  Israel is defending itself.  An aggressive defense, sure, but defense.  And they're getting BASHED for it?!

 

Few things in the world get to me, but hypocrisy is one of them.

 

Actually, Rush Limbaugh made a good point about this.  The whole conflict in the Middle East isn't going to end with a peace accord.  It's going to end when one side kicks the everliving crap outta the other side and decisivley wins this thing.  I'm somewhat inclined to agree.  Animosity this deep ain't gonna quit with a signature.  Right, Mr. Clinton?

[Guest]

Rush Limbaugh said that? Damn. I may have to rethink all this now.

[Guest Some Guy]

Rush said and was critisized by the leftist media for being a genocidal madman or something, when all he said was the truth.  The only way to *ENSURE* a permanant peace between to groups is for one to no longer exist, he was not necissarily advocating this, but he did say it.

[Guest]

It's just that one of the cornerstones of my world-view is that Rush Limbaugh is a delusional subhuman slug with a brain composed primarily of crushed red brick.

[Guest DrTom]

"It's going to end when one side kicks the everliving crap outta the other side and decisivley wins this thing."

 

Precisely.  Which is why Israel should simply evict the Palestinians, give them two weeks to comply, and shoot any who remain in the head.  You can't negotiate peace with a bunch of conscienceless, remorseless terrorists, and it's time we stopped trying.

[Guest DrTom]

"It's just that one of the cornerstones of my world-view is that Rush Limbaugh is a delusional subhuman slug with a brain composed primarily of crushed red brick."

 

C'mon Marney, even delusional subhuman slugs with brains composed primarily of crushed red brick can be right every now and then.  Hell, even Bill Clinton made a few good guesses during his eight years.

[Guest Some Guy]

"It's just that one of the cornerstones of my world-view is that Rush Limbaugh is a delusional subhuman slug with a brain composed primarily of crushed red brick."

 

C'mon Marney, even delusional subhuman slugs with brains composed primarily of crushed red brick can be right every now and then.  Hell, even Bill Clinton made a few good guesses during his eight years.

 

Come on now Dr., Clinton made good guesses?  You can't be serious.

[Guest]

even Bill Clinton made a few good guesses

Clinton is smart. Say what you want to about his morals, his class, and his ethics, but he is one smart cookie. Rush Limbaugh is downright stupid. He must've hired some chimps to throw darts at a board with a bunch of words taped to it.

[Guest Some Guy]

Clinton is a very smart guy, Rush is not as smart but I'd much rather listen to Rush than Clinton.  I've never knocked Clinton for being stupid because it is untrue, I've only mocked him for being a lying, filandering, character assasin, and an obstruster of justice, a bad President, who is more interested in his legacy than the well being of the country.  he came into office with the Economy going well and then hiked taxes and walsed out of office with the economy heading down the shitter, he can just blame it on Bush anyway.  Oh yeah, Clinton was also a disgrace and an emberrassment to the office of the presidency.  But other than that he's a great guy, who is quite intelligent.

[Guest]

Fair enough. <g> But at least he isn't grotesquely obese.

[Guest big Dante Cruz]

But Rush isn't really fat anymore, either.

[Guest DrTom]

"Clinton is smart."

 

I know he is.  But I was able to take potshots at him for EIGHT LONG YEARS, and I really can't anymore.  Had to get one in for old time's sake.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote  

even Bill Clinton made a few good guesses

Clinton is smart.>>>

 

 

BWA HA HA HA!

 

Oh, you were SERIOUS?

 

 

<<<Say what you want to about his morals, his class, and his ethics, but he is one smart cookie.>>>

 

 

For a smart cookie, he did some idiotic things---and fell for every petty tyrant and dictator who'd throw a few bucks at him.

 

I could even mention Enron and how Clinton did more for them than Bush---but I won't.

 

 

<<<Rush Limbaugh is downright stupid. He must've hired some chimps to throw darts at a board with a bunch of words taped to it. >>>

 

 

Shame you don't listen to him. He actually can be quite articulate.

                    -=Mike

 

...Just wondering, do you think the National Review is a "stupid" magazine? Not an insult, just a question

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Fair enough. <g> But at least he isn't grotesquely obese. >>>

 

 

ACTUALLY, Rush is thinner than Clinton.

 

By quite a bit, actually.

                -=Mike

 

...And Clinton wants to host a talk show? Well, it would definitely fit in with his overall legacy as being the "embarrassing uncle nobody talks about" of American Presidents

[Guest ant_7000]

Clinton with a talk show I wonder it'll be like a springer type show, I wish he could run again thou.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<Clinton with a talk show I wonder it'll be like a springer type show, I wish he could run again thou. >>>

 

 

Oh, I wish he could run again, also.

 

Bush Jr. would annihilate him in 2004.

                    -=Mike

 

...For a popular guy, Clinton never could pull off that whole "getting a majority of the vote" thing, could he?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Maybe Clinton can talk about how he didn't arrest Bin Laden when he had the chance. By the way this info comes from a Clinton supporter who stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom. Sorry it wasn't the evil Republicans.

[Guest]

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. His priorities were screwed up, but no one can pretend for one instant that he was dumb. Nope, I don't read the National Review; I actually have no idea what it is. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh a time or two, unfortunately, and I think that if he and Laura Schlessinger (and all other radio hosts) were to die tomorrow the world would be immeasurably improved.

And yes, Bush would annihilate him in 2004, but if Clinton had run for a third term, he would have annihilated Bush in 2000.

I agree about the talk show thing. It would be incredibly embarrassing if Clinton went through with it. I hope he doesn't.

[Guest DrTom]

"Clinton is smart.

 

BWA HA HA HA!

 

Oh, you were SERIOUS?"

 

Quite.  Clinton is a very intelligent man.  That's saying a lot coming from me, since I think he's a contemptible human being with worse politics, but even I can't deny that he's intelligent.  People perceive him as stupid because it's an easy way to explain his faults: he's wishy-washy, easily tempted, and tends to make poor decisions.

 

"Just wondering, do you think the National Review is a "stupid" magazine? Not an insult, just a question."

 

I like NR because I like Buckley, though I think he's far more conservative than the libertarian he claims to be.

[Guest]

All things considered, I'm glad George W Bush is our President right now. I would have preferred John McCain by a whisker's margin, but as it is I'm perfectly happy with Bush. Better him than Al Gore and all his baggage.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. His priorities were screwed up, but no one can pretend for one instant that he was dumb.>>>

 

 

Thing is, there is NEVER a Democratic President who is referred to as being less than intelligent---while Republicans are REGULARLY painted with that brush.

 

People call Bush dumb.

 

The man graduated from Harvard Business School---not exactly an easy feat.

 

Clinton may have had a world of book intelligence---but when it came to common sense, he was desperately lacking.

 

 

<<<Nope, I don't read the National Review; I actually have no idea what it is. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh a time or two, unfortunately, and I think that if he and Laura Schlessinger (and all other radio hosts) were to die tomorrow the world would be immeasurably improved.>>>

 

 

I have no problem with Dr. Laura because people call her and ask for her advice. If they don't want it, they don't have to call and they don't have to listen.

 

 

<<<And yes, Bush would annihilate him in 2004, but if Clinton had run for a third term, he would have annihilated Bush in 2000.

I agree about the talk show thing. It would be incredibly embarrassing if Clinton went through with it. I hope he doesn't. >>>

 

 

True---but if Reagan could have run for a 3rd term, Clinton might have never been elected in the first place (seeing as how Bush Sr. wouldn't have had 1988-1992 to cowtow to Democrats). Clinton's actions after Gore lost the election are, honestly, amongst the most distasteful a President has ever done. He's up there with Nixon in my book.

 

If Clinton DOES do this TV show, he can kiss any hopes of reclaiming his legacy good-bye.

                      -=Mike

[Guest]

That's a really lame defence of that creature, Mike. I have the same problem with "Dr" Laura (she's just a physiologist) that I do with other people who advocate hate and intolerance. You have to buy and read Goebbel's writings, just like you have to tune in to or call Schlessinger, but I still consider both of them disgusting pieces of subhuman filth.

Here are some remarks from those two. Which is more vicious than the other?

 

"If you're gay or a lesbian, it's a biological error that inhibits you from relating normally to the opposite sex.

If a marital convenant is not needed for gays and lesbians, it sure it isn't need [sic] for heterosexuals. Consequently, we see the destruction of the core of society.

I personally have been agonizing over this. I've always told people, who opposed homosexuality, that they were homophobic, bad, bigoted and idiotic. I was wrong. It is destructive."

 

"There may be a certain tragedy inherent in the nature of the Jews, but it is our fault that this race works destructively among the peoples and is a constant danger to their domestic and international security?"

 

Or, more directly, from the Reich Legal Director, Hans Frank:

"Particular attention should be addressed to homosexuality, which is clearly expressive of a disposition opposed to the normal national community. Homosexual activity means the negation of the community as it must be constituted if the race is not to perish. That is why homosexual behaviour, in particular, merits no mercy."

 

The only difference I can see is that the Nazis were more eloquent.

[Guest Risk]

Isn't Laura just stating her opinion?  I mean, she isn't killing anyone, or dragging homosexuals out of their homes and beating them to death.  She isn't holding rallys against them.  Not liking and/or supporting homosexuality IS NOT the same thing as homophobia.

 

The key word is "phobia."  Which means a fear or distrust.  So, homophobic individuals would be those with a phobia of homosexuality and/or homosexual individuals.  I myself don't believe in abortion, but I can see why SOME would advocate it, doesn't mean that I'm "phobic" over abortion.

[Guest]

Goebbels didn't shoot anyone himself either. Schlessinger is free to state her opinion, that gays are destructive "biological errors," just as I'm free to state that she's a vindictive, hateful, evil old crone whose intransigent screeds are far more damaging to a free and tolerant society than the homosexuals she condemns.

[Guest Risk]

Goebbels didn't shoot anyone himself either. Schlessinger is free to state her opinion, that gays are destructive "biological errors," just as I'm free to state that she's a vindictive, hateful, evil old crone whose intransigent screeds are far more damaging to a free and tolerant society than the homosexuals she condemns.

Exactly.  But society can NEVER be fully tolerant.  Everyone would have to believe the same thing to have a tolerant society.