Maybe they don't want to be Jordanian and Egyptian anymore. Is that so bad? Perhaps they feel defined by their very struggle for a separate state. Again that seems better than fighting.
I can't see why they need a state anymore than anyone else. I see you are unwilling to explain why you feel they do. I would think they could live in any first world country, like many others of the jewish faith do.
I find these states equally disgusting as your idea of a special nation for your religion. Why is that hard to grasp? I find most religion a bit disturbing and the idea of creating a nation for one religion to be nothing short of evil. Just by stating this is the nation for those who believe X you have made all those who believe Y second class citizens. Sure you let them vote, or practice religion for now, but once that interferes with the need for your state to be for those who believe in X that will change.
So by what year must a state have been created for it to exist? Are we no longer allowed to create new nations? Should Kurdistan never come to be since it has not yet existed? Israel did not exist until 1948 so is that the cutoff?
How would it make Israel an Arab state? If your concern is ethnic purity, than I am not sure how to respond to such a disgusting ideal.
I do not think you can force land onto other nations. Offering it should be a possibility though.
I am not sure what insight names give us into a persons heritage, nor am I sure how that relates to where they live. I think you are trying to find evidence for your point of view were none exists.
I am not sure what you mean about there never being a Palestine. I am not sure what impact history has on this anyway. We live in the now, not ancient history.
I would mention the rockets just fine. Like I said, my opinion is they are both guilty.
Try reading what I have said.
I would actually fully support the invasion of that land by Israel if it resulted in a one state solution with the former Palestinians being full Israeli citizens.
What I will not support is the current solution that is as morally bankrupt as the rocket attacks.
Not for fun, too make money. This is what world leaders really do. Starting a war sells a lot of weapons. I base this on the remarks made by their own politicians.
They do not only blockade weapons. Even a crocodile for the Gaza Zoo had to be smuggeled in. Please tell me how they would weaponize a crocodile.
Please also tell me what right the Israelis have to dictate what the Palestinians are allowed to have?
Sure the Palestinians are not nice people, I already stated that. This is a giant case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Some small amount of it in the environment. We released a lot more than would be natural.
Sure the area will recover, but the immediate economic impact on the people in the area is not acceptable. The economic impact in the short term is for me the biggest problem. The extraction operation cut corners and fishermen were stuck with the bill. That part is not liberal or conservative, it is simple reality. When push comes to shove these companies never pay for the damage they cause those around them.
1. What makes you think your prices would go down as a result of american control of resources? 2. $4/gallon is cheap as hell, compared to many place. 3. They don't walk away empty handed at all.
Oil is a fungible commodity even if we could get it for $0 out of the ground and into a barrel gas prices would not decrease very much. It would be sold as oil always is, on the open market.
And sometimes they switch aggressor and victim role back and forth.
Like when they want to bomb Iran for fun, or just dole out a little collective punishment to the Palestinians. As far as I am concerned they are all as guilty as each other.
Yeah! And why did they not bring up the theory that the earth is full of oil and it is regenerated by pixies? Why did they assume a round earth at all?
I don't understand it either. The Republicans have the hick and religious nutter vote locked up, why court them at all?
Playing towards the middle could win an election, but instead they take good middle of the road candidates like McCain and Romney and saddle them with a fringe nutcase VP. Then somehow convince them that it is in their own best interest to act like a far right winger instead of just acting like themselves. Not only does it turn these candidates into liars/flip-floppers but it dirves away votes.
If you pay attention to what they have been doing recently they made that choice. They are firmly going with social conservatism and spending like a sailor on shore leave. Sadly they want to do that last part and cut taxes at the same time.
Not sure what he used them for, but in places where rifles are not allowed for deer hunting scoped slug guns are pretty popular. Also pretty popular for turkey guns, since a very tight choke is used.
Oh wow who gave what to the salvation army. You realize that is a religion right? So many people may intentionally not give to them and instead donate to foodbanks.
Show me a study that excludes giving to your church and I will show you a legitimate charity study.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they don't want to be Jordanian and Egyptian anymore. Is that so bad? Perhaps they feel defined by their very struggle for a separate state. Again that seems better than fighting.
I can't see why they need a state anymore than anyone else. I see you are unwilling to explain why you feel they do. I would think they could live in any first world country, like many others of the jewish faith do.
I find these states equally disgusting as your idea of a special nation for your religion. Why is that hard to grasp? I find most religion a bit disturbing and the idea of creating a nation for one religion to be nothing short of evil. Just by stating this is the nation for those who believe X you have made all those who believe Y second class citizens. Sure you let them vote, or practice religion for now, but once that interferes with the need for your state to be for those who believe in X that will change.
So by what year must a state have been created for it to exist? Are we no longer allowed to create new nations? Should Kurdistan never come to be since it has not yet existed?
Israel did not exist until 1948 so is that the cutoff?
You would still want to vm the TS or RDS machines. Since you will have trouble finding drivers for such outdated operating systems.
How would it make Israel an Arab state?
If your concern is ethnic purity, than I am not sure how to respond to such a disgusting ideal.
I do not think you can force land onto other nations. Offering it should be a possibility though.
I am not sure what insight names give us into a persons heritage, nor am I sure how that relates to where they live. I think you are trying to find evidence for your point of view were none exists.
I am not sure what you mean about there never being a Palestine. I am not sure what impact history has on this anyway. We live in the now, not ancient history.
I would mention the rockets just fine.
Like I said, my opinion is they are both guilty.
Try reading what I have said.
I would actually fully support the invasion of that land by Israel if it resulted in a one state solution with the former Palestinians being full Israeli citizens.
What I will not support is the current solution that is as morally bankrupt as the rocket attacks.
Coffee is toxic?
So far I feel fine.
Not for fun, too make money. This is what world leaders really do. Starting a war sells a lot of weapons. I base this on the remarks made by their own politicians.
They do not only blockade weapons. Even a crocodile for the Gaza Zoo had to be smuggeled in. Please tell me how they would weaponize a crocodile.
Please also tell me what right the Israelis have to dictate what the Palestinians are allowed to have?
Sure the Palestinians are not nice people, I already stated that. This is a giant case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Some small amount of it in the environment.
We released a lot more than would be natural.
Sure the area will recover, but the immediate economic impact on the people in the area is not acceptable. The economic impact in the short term is for me the biggest problem. The extraction operation cut corners and fishermen were stuck with the bill. That part is not liberal or conservative, it is simple reality. When push comes to shove these companies never pay for the damage they cause those around them.
1. What makes you think your prices would go down as a result of american control of resources?
2. $4/gallon is cheap as hell, compared to many place.
3. They don't walk away empty handed at all.
Oil is a fungible commodity even if we could get it for $0 out of the ground and into a barrel gas prices would not decrease very much. It would be sold as oil always is, on the open market.
When was the last time a retailer leaked hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of gallons of toxic liquid into an environment?
Which is why fuel is so cheap in Somalia!
Capitalism is a system of allocating resources, it may in fact be the best one we have. Lets not pretend it is magical.
And sometimes they switch aggressor and victim role back and forth.
Like when they want to bomb Iran for fun, or just dole out a little collective punishment to the Palestinians. As far as I am concerned they are all as guilty as each other.
Yeah! And why did they not bring up the theory that the earth is full of oil and it is regenerated by pixies?
Why did they assume a round earth at all?
For that reason very low power/ no power red dot scopes are popular for turkey hunting.
Buy better slugs. 200 yards is achievable with hornady SSTs.
Also your groups will improve with a low power scope over iron sights.
I don't understand it either. The Republicans have the hick and religious nutter vote locked up, why court them at all?
Playing towards the middle could win an election, but instead they take good middle of the road candidates like McCain and Romney and saddle them with a fringe nutcase VP. Then somehow convince them that it is in their own best interest to act like a far right winger instead of just acting like themselves. Not only does it turn these candidates into liars/flip-floppers but it dirves away votes.
Jill Stein was just a figment of my imagination?
I really do remember marking that box on the ballot.
Sorry, I have had to deal with too much stupid today.
It would save us a shitload of tax money and we would no longer have to worry about the American taliban getting their voice in our laws.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/09/who-receives-the-disproportionate-share-of-government-spending.html
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
If you pay attention to what they have been doing recently they made that choice. They are firmly going with social conservatism and spending like a sailor on shore leave. Sadly they want to do that last part and cut taxes at the same time.
Can't we at least let them try it this time?
Yes, FSM forbid you have to use google or have a basic understanding of English.
Not sure what he used them for, but in places where rifles are not allowed for deer hunting scoped slug guns are pretty popular. Also pretty popular for turkey guns, since a very tight choke is used.
Oh wow who gave what to the salvation army. You realize that is a religion right? So many people may intentionally not give to them and instead donate to foodbanks.
Show me a study that excludes giving to your church and I will show you a legitimate charity study.