<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 25 2008, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Jul 25 2008, 01:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Jul 25 2008, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No actually I am worried about it, clearly I never accused anyone of treason you just jumped to that conclusion and are now making a retraction. I'd highly suggest you read the definition of treason before you make such outlandish accusations, because doing so without any shred of reasoning is, as you just stated, immature as hell.</div> You're so partisan, it is hard to take you seriously. People in the media have said the same thing for weeks now, and I made no retraction. Dude, you're accusing him of treason. You're saying he's a traitor, and you sound like a bitter kid to me. You need to relax, your posts are full of hate and they are quite unappealing. Less Bashing and more attacks on Obama's position is what I prefer reading. </div> You can claim that I am partisan, but the fact is I approach everything I read about politics with no political affiliation or expectations. I generally speaking take the time to make sure I'm right before I say anything, because I pretty much hate being incorrect about anything. You may not have made a retraction, but you most definitely are back pedaling. You said I accused him of treason, I asked where, instead of pointing it out (as you would of had I actually accused him of treason) you said "Don't worry about it". In my opinion the only reason why you consider me to be so partisan and 'full of hate' is because you don't like anyone posting about your candidate in a negative light. And on the note of immaturity, I am far from a bitter kid...Nice to see that defense mechanism come out though. </div> Lol, I am not backpedaling. I said "Don't worry about it", because that is a sarcastic thing I like saying. The article you posted sounded ridiculously bitter, obviously you enjoy that style.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jul 25 2008, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your 'facts' on Israel are completely wrong. Not only did 'we' NOT 'settle' Israel, the US was a very minor player both during Aliyot periods, and didn't become Israel's primary supplier of weaponry until after the Six Day War - which was the result of regional considerations that did not bear on Israel per se so much as preventing Soviet incursions. Nor does the US in fact 'support' Israel as people mistakenly believe. There is aid, equal to that which the US gives Egypt, but that aid is conditioned upon Israeli purchase of US military products with that money. That's one part of the equation. A second lies in the fact that the US can always play off Israel when necessary, such as it did during the first Gulf War. Yet another reason lies in Israel's technological and medical innovations, which are generally jointly-sponsored with benefits going to both the US and Israel, whether the product be the Arrow anti-missile system or a nanotech innovation for medical application. Oh, and the US can use Israel for its regional dirty work with considerable deniability, which worked for Israel's Osirak strike but didn't pan out in the Iran-Contra affair. So we've got trade, military and political interests and a card that can be played. That's a hell of a lot more than the US gets from many other countries it sends aid to - and those countries don't even have spending clauses like that of Israel. Switching tack, you clearly have no idea how much pressure the US has been putting on Israel to NOT act, while compelling the latter to act in accordance with regional US interests. If the US did pull a France (see DeGaulle circa 1967), guess who'd step right in? Hint: India and/or China. The net 'benefit' to the US would be zero - at best.</div> Whatever. Israel is and always will be the US's little step child. They are so relfective of the US, it's almost like they are another US state. They will continue to use our military hardware and nuclear weapons as long as we give them that opportunity. We do "Support" them, in multiple ways. You even mentioned some. They would be nowhere the country they are today without a massive amount of US interest involved, period. Oh, I just adore the fact that we get involved in their regional politics! It makes for exciting news every week. No need to worry, AEM, Israel isn't going anywhere. Our next president completely "supports" them. I don't. In fact, I really hope they are toppled within my lifetime. Good riddance. Oh, and as far as them using US-bought nuclear weapons on their neighbors - We can simply take them back from them, but we won't.
I am constantly amazed that Jews vote almost unanimously for Democrats, even tho those Democrats spew rhetoric like that in the above post.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 25 2008, 02:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jul 25 2008, 01:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Your 'facts' on Israel are completely wrong. Not only did 'we' NOT 'settle' Israel, the US was a very minor player both during Aliyot periods, and didn't become Israel's primary supplier of weaponry until after the Six Day War - which was the result of regional considerations that did not bear on Israel per se so much as preventing Soviet incursions. Nor does the US in fact 'support' Israel as people mistakenly believe. There is aid, equal to that which the US gives Egypt, but that aid is conditioned upon Israeli purchase of US military products with that money. That's one part of the equation. A second lies in the fact that the US can always play off Israel when necessary, such as it did during the first Gulf War. Yet another reason lies in Israel's technological and medical innovations, which are generally jointly-sponsored with benefits going to both the US and Israel, whether the product be the Arrow anti-missile system or a nanotech innovation for medical application. Oh, and the US can use Israel for its regional dirty work with considerable deniability, which worked for Israel's Osirak strike but didn't pan out in the Iran-Contra affair. So we've got trade, military and political interests and a card that can be played. That's a hell of a lot more than the US gets from many other countries it sends aid to - and those countries don't even have spending clauses like that of Israel. Switching tack, you clearly have no idea how much pressure the US has been putting on Israel to NOT act, while compelling the latter to act in accordance with regional US interests. If the US did pull a France (see DeGaulle circa 1967), guess who'd step right in? Hint: India and/or China. The net 'benefit' to the US would be zero - at best.</div> Whatever. Israel is and always will be the US's little step child. They are so relfective of the US, it's almost like they are another US state. They will continue to use our military hardware and nuclear weapons as long as we give them that opportunity. We do "Support" them, in multiple ways. You even mentioned some. They would be nowhere the country they are today without a massive amount of US interest involved, period. Oh, I just adore the fact that we get involved in their regional politics! It makes for exciting news every week. No need to worry, AEM, Israel isn't going anywhere. Our next president completely "supports" them. I don't. In fact, I really hope they are toppled within my lifetime. Good riddance. Oh, and as far as them using US-bought nuclear weapons on their neighbors - We can simply take them back from them, but we won't. </div> Again, you make presumptions based on incorrect facts. Have you actually been to Israel? The people, culture, government, military and virtually everything else are vastly different from the US. In fact, it's a running joke there that American olim (Jews who emigrate to Israel) never last more than a few years. Israel compares societally to Mediterranean countries, governmentally to Britain, and has a culture and military ethos all its own. As for what you incorrectly term 'support,' the fact is that it's a series of mutually beneficial relationships, which range across a broad spectrum. And to think that the US 'gave' Israel nuclear weapons is laughable. That's about as ridiculous an assertion (and as commonly made) as pretending that US weapons won Israel's independence in 1948, or ensured it in 1967. So taking them 'back' is a similar non-starter. In terms of the country Israel is, or would be without US as its partner, feel free to go back and look at Israel before 1970. As far as you wishing it to be 'toppled,' which would entail many of my people being slaughtered, I'm afraid I couldn't care less about either your ignorance of the pertinent facts or wish for the future. The US didn't get involved with Israel for Israel's sake, it got involved for its own reasons - and remains involved for those same US reasons. Without understanding that fundamental principle, you're not going to understand anything about the region, US interests therein, or Israel. Not that it seems you have a desire to, and that's your prerogative, of course.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I am constantly amazed that Jews vote almost unanimously for Democrats, even tho those Democrats spew rhetoric like that in the above post.</div> Well, our loyalties have always run deep, and many times long past where they were due. [i.e. Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, even Reconquista-era Spain]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I am constantly amazed that Jews vote almost unanimously for Democrats, even tho those Democrats spew rhetoric like that in the above post.</div> I am not a Democrat.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jul 25 2008, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 02:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I am constantly amazed that Jews vote almost unanimously for Democrats, even tho those Democrats spew rhetoric like that in the above post.</div> Well, our loyalties have always run deep, and many times long past where they were due. [i.e. Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, even Reconquista-era Spain] </div> Are you guys inching your way into personal attacks?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jul 25 2008, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As for what you incorrectly term 'support,' the fact is that it's a series of mutually beneficial relationships, which range across a broad spectrum. And to think that the US 'gave' Israel nuclear weapons is laughable. That's about as ridiculous an assertion (and as commonly made) as pretending that US weapons won Israel's independence in 1948, or ensured it in 1967. So taking them 'back' is a similar non-starter. In terms of the country Israel is, or would be without US as its partner, feel free to go back and look at Israel before 1970.</div> Facts, facts, facts... A "Grant" is essentially welfare. The cost goes to us, here in America. Between 1949 and 2006, the United States has given $98,719,600,000 in grants to the country of Israel. $51,326.400,000 of that total is for miltary, and $30,780,000,000 for economic purposes... You are going to sit here and tell me that they *bought* their weapons from us? Their country is tiny. What on earth did our free $51 billion in weapons not cover!?!?!?!?!??!?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jul 25 2008, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as you wishing it to be 'toppled,' which would entail many of my people being slaughtered, I'm afraid I couldn't care less about either your ignorance of the pertinent facts or wish for the future. The US didn't get involved with Israel for Israel's sake, it got involved for its own reasons - and remains involved for those same US reasons. Without understanding that fundamental principle, you're not going to understand anything about the region, US interests therein, or Israel. Not that it seems you have a desire to, and that's your prerogative, of course.</div> You're biased. You want israel to remain israel. Mentioning that wound entail many people getting slaughtered probably didn't factor into the opinion that we should "topple" Saddam Hussein's former regime in Iraq. Hypocrisy! Everyone on *THAT* side of the issue rationalized it, and says it was part of the greater good. So don't come back at me with how concerned you are about human lives. You are just as willing to sacrifice some for what you want.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 25 2008, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I am constantly amazed that Jews vote almost unanimously for Democrats, even tho those Democrats spew rhetoric like that in the above post.</div> I am not a Democrat. </div> On Washington Journal, a C-SPAN call in program in the mornings, people call in on the Democratic Party line and tout that kind of rhetoric all the time. There's a difference between being analytical of the rhetoric and attacking a poster, ya know.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign.</div> When the fuck isn't this the case?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 25 2008, 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign.</div> When the **** isn't this the case? </div> To be honest, I'm really thinking that the FEC has to get involved and they're likely to rule Obama's overseas fact-finding trip was illegal election activity.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 25 2008, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I am constantly amazed that Jews vote almost unanimously for Democrats, even tho those Democrats spew rhetoric like that in the above post.</div> I am not a Democrat. </div> On Washington Journal, a C-SPAN call in program in the mornings, people call in on the Democratic Party line and tout that kind of rhetoric all the time. </div> I don't doubt that there are more people who share some of the opinions that I do, who may have been "pigeon-holed" or "labelled" as whatever. I'm sure that there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans who feel the way I do. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>There's a difference between being analytical of the rhetoric and attacking a poster, ya know.</div> Sure, let's keep tightrope-walking that fine line.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 25 2008, 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign.</div> When the **** isn't this the case? </div> To be honest, I'm really thinking that the FEC has to get involved and they're likely to rule Obama's overseas fact-finding trip was illegal election activity. </div> How come? (I'm curious more than anything).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 25 2008, 03:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jul 25 2008, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jul 25 2008, 01:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A disgraceful PR stunt, using the troops as a platform for his ego and campaign.</div> When the **** isn't this the case? </div> To be honest, I'm really thinking that the FEC has to get involved and they're likely to rule Obama's overseas fact-finding trip was illegal election activity. </div> How come? (I'm curious more than anything). </div> Yeah, why would they? Does it have to do with the usage of campaign funds?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Jul 25 2008, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jul 25 2008, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as you wishing it to be 'toppled,' which would entail many of my people being slaughtered, I'm afraid I couldn't care less about either your ignorance of the pertinent facts or wish for the future. The US didn't get involved with Israel for Israel's sake, it got involved for its own reasons - and remains involved for those same US reasons. Without understanding that fundamental principle, you're not going to understand anything about the region, US interests therein, or Israel. Not that it seems you have a desire to, and that's your prerogative, of course.</div> You're biased. You want israel to remain israel. Mentioning that wound entail many people getting slaughtered probably didn't factor into the opinion that we should "topple" Saddam Hussein's former regime in Iraq. Hypocrisy! Everyone on *THAT* side of the issue rationalized it, and says it was part of the greater good. So don't come back at me with how concerned you are about human lives. You are just as willing to sacrifice some for what you want. </div> Considering that you lack even the basic facts on which a valid opinion may be held, I couldn't care less that you think I'm biased. You are, simply put, in no position to have a valid opinion on my views. Nor does trying to project your nonsensical concepts onto me in terms of human life have any worth, for the same reason. In sum, it's not worth my time to discuss anything Mid-East related with you until you've done some serious research. And the fact that you respond to factual information with a puerile 'you're biased' ad hominem is extraordinarily weak. Just so you don't think it wasn't obvious, though you play the pigeon-hole card shortly thereafter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jul 25 2008, 05:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Considering that you lack even the basic facts on which a valid opinion may be held, I couldn't care less that you think I'm biased. You are, simply put, in no position to have a valid opinion on my views. Nor does trying to project your nonsensical concepts onto me in terms of human life have any worth, for the same reason. In sum, it's not worth my time to discuss anything Mid-East related with you until you've done some serious research. And the fact that you respond to factual information with a puerile 'you're biased' ad hominem is extraordinarily weak. Just so you don't think it wasn't obvious, though you play the pigeon-hole card shortly thereafter.</div> I hope that you, sir, have a wonderful day.
