idrankwhat

You mean THIS DoJ? They know nothing about applicability other than that it doesn't apply edited to add: Hey, maybe Scooter and Dubya can get Paris Hilton to come by and lecture them on accountability

I don't know anything about this source but at quick glance, it looks pretty reasonable. http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html I asked the question because of our experiences here in South Africa since our first democratic elections in 1994. The governing party has around 67-70% of the popular support, mainly Black. The next strongest party has around 12%, mainly White. In parliament the governing party needs a 2/3 majority to change the constitution, which clearly puts the minority groups in a very precarious position. According to the charts on that website, for the region in question it looks like the present day make up is nearly 50:50. That could make for an interesting government to say the least.

Why is the onus on the Palestinian's alone? Why do you give Israel a free pass to occupy land outside their borders, control all travel outside their borders, shoot anyone they want, imprison indefinitely any men, women and children they want with no charge, continue to steal land and build illegal settlements outside their borders, lob missiles at "suspected" terrorists and disregard any "collateral damage", control the money flowing in and out of Gaza, control the electrical power in Gaza, bulldoze homes and orchards of anyone they want, deny building permits to Palestinian residents of Israel and eventually take their land as well....the list goes on. And that's not even considering war crime activity like the cluster bombs and daily mock raid terrorizing of their neighbors. Everyone always says that Israel has a right to protect itself, why in the hell don't the Palestinian's have the same right? If I was going to place any responsibility I'd place it on the group with the most power to make something happen, and that's Israel and the US. The Arab Peace Initiative that was offered, which was looking for peace and security and recognition of Israel, is a good place to start. Israel and the US just need to set the negotiation table and try to get something started.

I don't know anything about this source but at quick glance, it looks pretty reasonable. http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html

Which is almost precisely what the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (revived 2007) proposed.

I think it's a good idea. Just call it "The Holy Land".

An opinion that is more geographically relevant than mine. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/846420.html

That's one hell of a commute from Iraq.......and Iran.

That is a shitty idea See, I was right.

The only difference is scale. http://www.piratesandemperors.com/

I keep waiting for you to add something of value to the discussion. Still waiting. Should I wait longer or should I be satisfied with your wantonly ignorant and inflammatory rhetoric?

I'm confused. How is wearing a T-shirt with alcohol and pot on it, along with a reference to our loser in chief, considered promoting alcohol and drugs? Seems that it's just the opposite

Ain't hardly any difference between em, nope... but someone has to show they're BOTH collective bags of shit... It's Friday, so I'll drink to that!

1) I'm surprised that trade agreements haven't been included in this debate, either here or at the national level. 2) I agree that laws need to be enforced. Each company who shut down because of the scheduled immigration demonstrations should have been thoroughly investigated. 3) You can't deport 12 million people. It's logistically impossible so that talking point needs to be canned. 4) This same "problem" has been dealt with with the Irish and the Italians and we recovered from that "crisis". 5) Spending money to build a wall or a fence is a bad idea and a big waste of money. If you're willing to spend taxpayer dollars then the problem should be solved by changing trade agreements and supporting economic and infrastructure developments south of the border. A fence doesn't look good, it won't work, and if economic opportunities improve in their home countries then fewer people will want to emigrate. 6) If I had to fly a flag in front of my house I'd have to fly it upside down and most people wouldn't understand.

Maybe she does have some interesting ideas. But I'll never know because I don't want to feed the beast, except for maybe some thread posts on DZ.com And for the record, I don't watch the Jerry Springer or Maury Povich shows either. They offer equal societal contributions. Honestly, I'm embarrassed at what we broadcast into space. No wonder the aliens are leaving us alone. They're waiting for us to evolve a bit more

I'll both agree and disagree with that. If a Democrat were to flat out state: "During the march to war President Bush said that Iraq had WMD's. Saddam said that Bush was wrong and that the war was over different reasons. Apparently Saddam was the one who was telling the US citizens the truth and Bush feeding us a line of crap." I'd expect him to catch a ration of public abuse. What was said was absolutely true but it's a bit too blunt. However I'd also expect someone to be publicly abused they claimed that another political party was genetically inferior and deserved extermination. That statement is completely false and very hateful. One of those statements is close to the truth, the other offers nothing of value, yet both will greeted with a public outcry. IMO, what little actual content she can add to a debate is overshadowed by the volume of hate and anger that she spews. But then again if my job was to make a profit for a media company I might be forced to take a different view. The bottom line is money, as usual.

I missed it, did Kerry or Edwards say that Cheney's kids should die or did they just bring up the homosexuality issue? In my opinion, Coulter can bring up any issue that she wants to talk about and comment on it. I just don't think she has to use language that makes her look like a mean spirited, hateful bitch. Personally, I think that when people stoop to yelling, calling people names and spewing hatred that it's a good sign that they're trying to compensate for a weak argument. Which brings me back to my original assertion. She has little more to offer than weak arguments so she does what she does and gets rewarded for it.

So the fact that most muslim crazy groups list Israel as one of their nut-job issues with the world has nothing to do with it? The fact that, regardless of how it started, it has pretty much become divided down religious lines is irrelevant? It may not have started out that way, but it is what it is now. Religious lines are an easy way to look at it but when you dig deeper you'll see that that division doesn't really work. There are plenty of Muslim, Jewish and Christian views that apply to both sides. I think that Zionism is actually more of a political movement than a religious one, although certainly not mutually exclusive. One thing I've noticed though, and I think it's why more people don't criticize Israel more, is that the Palestinian militants and Muslim extremists shout out their intentions and desire to take their land back. Israel publicly calls for peace but quietly continues to take the land.

But why does she need to make any statements like that at all? If she wouldn't personally attack people then she wouldn't be "misquoted" or "taken out of context" now would she? Why not just offer some political opinion or insight that is issue oriented? Probably because she doesn't have much to offer on those issues. Plenty of other political pundits are able to make a good living through respectful dialog. Her talent lies in spewing disrespect and hate. She's good at it and the shit storms that she stirs up are the reasons that she is invited to speak in the first place. It riles up both her base and her opposition and it sells. It's like broadcasting a train wreck of a train on the way to a nudist colony. Guaranteed ratings.

If you (as in americans) would do that, it would be great.. your tax dollars funds the israeli army after all..

"Islam" is not making that claim. The descendants of the people who lived there are. On both sides.

Got mixed emotions on this one. For one, they're working more than the last Congress. Then again, instead of doing stupid stuff like debating brain dead women and anti-gay amendments they're continuing to make bad spending decisions and legislating incredibly backassward ideas like making auto fuel from coal. So I'd just as soon not give them any more money. But I'm willing to make a deal with them. If they'll quit taking bribes from wealthy individuals and corporations then I'd support the raise.

Assuming he was in on it. Then again, you have previously assumed the worst about him. One of my favorite quotes from Powell: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!"

In that 6 months UNSCOM and IAEA would have submitted final reports, making it very difficult for Bush to sell his WMD fairy stories to Congress and the US public. Speaking of fairy tales. You're saying that if the inspections had continued, and found nothing, that the American public and Congress would have still given Bush a blank check to start the war? I mean we're pretty knuckle headed bunch here in the States but I don't think we're that dense.