knapplc

Sub, you used the word "genocide." You directed me to the Geneva Convention definition. When I questioned why, you asserted that I had to read it, and specifically Article 2. I'm not putting any other meaning on that word than what you said.

I fixed it. To post an image, copy the URL: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/NSuBaseKBlogo.jpg Then click the button under the smiley face that looks like a computer monitor, or a Polaroid picture. That opens a dialog box, and you paste the URL into the box and hit "OK."

I don't think people supporting Ron Paul really look that deeply into his politics. He's toned down his rhetoric lately, but yes, he did publish newsletters with strong racial biases. Twenty years ago doesn't excuse the fact that he did it. He still did it. Twenty years ago he wasn't running for the presidency. Twenty years ago he was a 56-year-old man with the wisdom to know better than to publish something like that. A 56-year-old man should be smart enough not to let a newsletter go out in his name that states that order was restored in the L.A. riots following the Rodney King verdict "only after the welfare checks were handed out." That is an unconscionable statement from a grown man. But we don't have to go back twenty years. Let's go back to 2008 when Ron Paul gave the keynote address to the John Birch Society's 50th anniversary dinner. That was four years ago. This isn't "the distant past," this is the last election cycle. He's not giving up these racist beliefs, he's just putting them aside while it's politically convenient. Paul has some good ideas. And they make a lot of sense. But so did Mussolini. It's not enough to make the trains run on time, and it's not OK to accept radicalism for the few benefits a presidential candidate may offer.

Eddie Izzard is hilarious. I forgot what the name of it was, but he had a pretty good stand-up special a while back on HBO. He's not just funny, he's clever, too.

Hey... how did this sub-forum get to be named after me? Because you have the coolest avatar?

I know a guy in the army over there. Never once heard him mention anything about targeting every male Pashtun. Works in Intelligence, so he'd have a pretty good idea who the targets are. It just seems very odd that we would blow a gasket over the term "anti-Semite" yet so casually toss out - and defend - an accusation that American troops are engaged in an atrocity like genocide. Double-standard.

I moved a bunch of posts from this thread. We cannot copy/paste entire articles onto the board. Fair usage rights allow an excerpt and a link, not the whole article. It doesn't become fair usage if you post the whole article in two-paragraph segments.

What some are labeling "divisive rhetoric" is what others are labeling "making the problem known." I suppose Paul Revere could be considered one of the nation's first spreaders of "divisive rhetoric" if you want to look at it that way. Personally, using a term like "divisive rhetoric" to describe how most people feel about this topic is the very definition of divisive rhetoric. Only a few are being divisive. The majority just want what's right.

It has nothing to do with his ancestors. It has everything to do with Santorum pissing off Gay people with his peeking-in-your-bedroom attitude about sex. The Wiki page explains where it all came from in pretty good detail.

Fair warning - we can disagree about a topic or a point or who should answer what question. But if there are personal attacks we must apply board rules. We've gotten too lax with this rule, and it's going to have to stop. Do not say I didn't give you fair warning. No more personal attacks at all. Let's just get along. Agree to disagree.

As a matter of fact, I do have some. From maybe ten days ago? Not quite sure on the date. They've probably made a week's progress since then. Above is the completed Baseball/Softball practice facility. Below is the East Stadium project.

Cactus, you haven't asked walksalone a question he hasn't answered. Why don't you answer him? What are you hiding from?

You'll have to keep waiting, walks. A wise man once told me, "It's easier to avoid difficult situations than to meet them head on." It seems those are words he lives by.

Four years ago the Republicans inflicted a McCain/Palin ticket on America. Do you mean eight years ago, when the Democrats went with.... wait a minute.... who was that........ Kerry and... <gives up, googles the answer> John Edwards! Yikes. I am getting old if I can't remember that. (I seriously had to think about it to remember Kerry and I had to google to find Edwards) Regardless, neither party has had a "good" candidate in a looooong time. Kind of sad, considering what's at stake.

The passive-aggressive attempt to drag on what is proving to be a meritless debate is funny. Good try.

That totally got me I have been "caught" by that stupid thing twice. And I wasn't even drinking either time.

Just go ahead and label me however you want. Carpe diem, Cactus. Carpe diem.

What relevance does the US / al Qaeda conflict have in this discussion? Is this one of those "move the goal post" things?

I fail to see your point. But the energy you're exerting over this is amusing nonetheless.

I answered this before...maybe to you even. You can go back and look for it if you want. This question has not been answered in this thread, unless I missed it.

So is that how all conflicts should be discussed? Is there any conflict where one side is lily white? Are you going to hold this standard for all conflicts you discuss? It's a case-by-case basis, of course.

I'm sorry, I'm just not as emotionally invested in this as you. The whole point of my conversation was to whittle the nonsense away to the point where we could agree that each side had valid points and each side had done wrong. If you want to quibble over who's MORE wrong, knock yourself out.

Nothing you've shown me proves that the media is more biased than I already knew. It doesn't take much to believe in media bias. But it does take quite a leap in logic to extrapolate from that belief another belief that Israel = bad, Arabs = good. Completely unsupported conclusion.

I would agree with the tenor of that article. There is much merit to what the Arabs are feeling. There is no merit to bombing buses, though. Nor to indiscriminately firing rockets into your neighbor's fields, or to any of the other myriad things the Arabs have done in this conflict. Same goes for Israel. Kinda what I've been saying for several pages in this thread.