No, we take a different approach...(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: What? like sleep deprivation and waterboarding? - Please. We dont cut fingers off.nm
we torture continuously such that the victim's heart beat goes down to what...35 beats a minute? Or how about that guy that had bone cancer that they beat continuously and withheld medication....he died by the way.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
As we approach this anniversary, please do what you can
http://youtube.com/watch?v=se1xMPresLg
Your approach to promoting your cause is like
nm
I agree. I think there was a better way to approach this...
and posted an idea from Dave Ramsey that seemed like an excellent one. I do think we have to do something...it has gone way too far now.
But ... but ... that's the sensible approach. What are you doing on this board? LOL
nm
Now why doesn't McCain take that approach?
I've been leaning in favor of Obama these last few weeks and I have to say it's because McCain isn't offering me up any reasons to choose him. Why isn't he attacking Obama's "socialist" viewpoint instead of just trash-talking. I don't want to live in a socialist country, but I also have had enough of the Bush years. Why isn't McCain taking a stronger stance than what he has been.
While I don't want Obama overseeing our healthcare, I also don't want to pay McCain's taxes on it. We're already going to see a hike in our taxes from this bailout, which I think both candidates unwisely supported. Furthermore, I think we need to bring some of our troops back home, unless the Iraqi govt wants to start paying us for having them there. That war alone is costing us millions. On the other hand, I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. And don't even get me started on Roe versus Wade. I'm pro-choice, but I'm not pro-mutilating babies that survived abortion. I believe abortion is a decision that needs to be made before 12 weeks' gestation. That's just my feeling and I know many will disagree.
And let's not kid each other about Palin. I personally don't care to be spoken to like I'm a redneck. It's very patronizing and I don't appreciate it. When it was first announced that she was the VP pick, I was very interested in learning more about her and also kind of psyched to get a woman in the White House. But after listening to her address the country, I felt like a kindergartener. She should find a better way to speak to us as American citizens, not rednecks from the backwoods.
The school yard bully/"I was here first" approach
is pretty juvenile, don't you think? Besides, it does not hold water. I hate to break this to you, but the Philistines showed up in the region around the same time that the Hebrews did, around the 12th century BC. The history of civilization did not ensue with the Biblical Hebrews and Palestinian presence predates your Moslem invasion era reference. In fact, since the habitation of the region predates recorded history by nearly a million years, there is no way you can gain any traction with that ridiculously juvenile line of thinking. There is no such thing as paleolithic, neolithic or chalcolithic squatters. So, you see, my view of history is not as short-sighted as yours, which does not go back quite far enough, unless you have some special license to begin it "whenever it suits your purpose."
In any case, that is why no viable debate can be had outside the context of modern (i.e., nationalist/political) times. Like I said before, please leave God out of the ungodly. The fact remains that the geographic regions populated by Philistines/Palestinians have stayed relatively intact under all sorts of invasions and occupations, including the Persians, Hellenistic, Hasmonean, Roman, Byzantine, Arab Caliphates, including Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid rule, the Crusades, Mamluk, Egyptian and Ottoman eras....all the way up until the Brits got their hands on it in 1917 and even beyond that for a few decades, until the Partition Plan was instituted. This represents approximately 3147 years of continuous residence. Your finder's keepers thingy applies to both the Hebrew Biblical era as well as modern day fascist Israel. Palestine does not belong to you. Never has. Never will.
Who failed to honor cease fire preconditions by failing to lift the blockade, braniac? Do not try to pretend we are talking about the red rivers of blood from (how few is it now?) the 9 (?) Israeli fatalities. Israel sits on top of generations of their very own road kill.
A "different approach". Go ahead, be weak.
nm
Bush considered taking Obama's approach last summer
efforts to forge peace in Israel/Palestine.
Bush floated the idea of re-establishing a diplomatic US interests section in Tehran last summer which for the time being has been shelved.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran_no_deal
Here's the no-brainer rule-of-thumb on this topic. If you wwant war, you don't negotiate with opponents. If you want peace, you sit down aat the table.
When evaluating the credibility of this ad, as yourself that basic question..."Who stands to benefit the most" by taking this position? As they have demonstrated over the past 60 years, it is in Zionist's best interest to perpetuate war in their region. They have been able to enrich their nation immensely with US taxpayer dollars and enjoy an uncontested nuclear bully status in the region as the US's most favorite global puppet. The notion that the US would promote peace or stability in the region would diminish their status exponentially and are the last nation on earth that would like to see the US play the disarmament card.
|
