knapplc

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.

So how do you explain the fact that 100,000 of Egypt's 160,000 troops were in the Sinai next to Israel's borders in the days leading up to the war? And the presence of the Iraqi forces? And the presence of the bulk of Syria's and Jordan's military forces next to the Israel border, including their most advanced tanks? Picnic?

http://www.foreignpo...not-preemptive/ Unconvincing in the face of the blockade of Eilat, not to mention the ouster of UN troops from Sinai by Egypt immediately prior to the war. Further, the bulk of the armies of Syria and Jordan were on their borders with Israel, not to mention members of the Iraqi military (which shares no border with Israel). The blockade alone could be construed as an act of war.

now you've done it, you will be scolded for that remark. Don't you know he loves the Jewish people he just doesn't love the govt or them living anywhere in the middle east. They need to all go back to where they came from and he can love them there!! Let's all sing cumbaya!! Knapp...this is the guy you were thankful to be on your "side". That is a disgusting low blow. You owe johnny an apology.

This is another disingenuous allegation. Both sides were heavily prepared for war. Two-thirds of the entire Egyptian military were on the Israeli borders. Iraq, Syria and Jordan all had large contingents on the Israeli border. This is not a peace-time maneuver. Don't pretend that Israel attacked a sleeping enemy like Japan. Not even close. EVERYONE that mattered KNEW Egypt wasn't going to attack. They are quoted as saying so...Israel's leader and US intelligence agreed they weren't going to and wouldn't have attacked. I can provide the quotes if needed. See how most have such a warped version of what's happened over there throughout the decades? How many outright lies do I need to show before you can admit it's greatly skewed? Step away from the conventional wisdom and into reality. Quoted where? Source, please.