idrankwhat

Temporarily yes, but they are not allowed to transfer their population into that land. It's a violation of the fourth Geneva convention. Attacks would not cease immediately. There are going to be fanatics on both sides who will create serious problems for a peaceful coexistence. But you have to work through those setbacks if you want lasting peace. Right now the Palestinians in the West Bank are not being given the right to self determination due to the apartheid policies of Israel. Some existing settlements will be allowed to stay and become part of Israel's new boundary based on a 1:1 land swap. Others will have to be dismantled. The Palestinians need a contiguous state that they can control, not the series of isolated reservations under control of their neighbor as was proposed a decade ago. After the borders are determined then an multinational force can be brought in to help with supervision, security, dispute resolution.

The Palestinians are home. So are the Israeli's. It's homeland for all of them. And yes, there are fanatics who wish to see Israel gone from the map. And there are fanatics who wish to drive out all of the Palestinians so they can reclaim the Biblical Kingdom of David. In my opinion, both of those views should be dealt with equally. There is a modern state of Israel and it has borders. It needs to quit building outside of those borders. As for your earlier notion that Israel needs to take more of the West Bank because the room is needed for an expanding Jewish population, well that's a fine example of bigotry (forgive me if I missed a sarcasm emoticon), but I appreciate your honesty.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/changes.asp

God WILLS IT! When will we evolve? It's no wonder the aliens won't come and visit with all their neat toys.

Not true. There will indeed be attacks, from both sides. Don't forget who killed Rabin. But that's the point where the leaders are tested. The leaders hold to their agreements and not let the fanatics derail the deal. It did happen. And there have been numerous times during the last decade where agreements and proposals have been proffered, the Geneva Accord being the best IMO. But it was completely ignored here in the US. I think Colin Powell made a positive comment publicly but that was all I found. But why should Israel agree to quit with the manifest destiny when it had the Bush administration giving them free reign, countless vetos and $3B/year?...... Fuck....it's happening again. And on a Friday. Here. Read if you like. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_35&search_string=israel+geneva+hamas&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=idrankwhat&sb=score&mh=25

No, how many Israels should there be? That's how democracies work. But you also have human rights institutions in place to insure that no country violates the rights of another. At least that's the theory. Because Israel is in control of whether or not it wants to continue stealing land. If they decide to continue then the Palestinians will get pissed (rightly so) and walk away from the table. They have said as much. So the choice is up to Israel. Practically everyone else in the world, and a sizable contingent of Israelis recognize that Israel is stealing land. It can choose to continue the moratorium and continue the talks or it can resume stealing land and jeopardize the talks. And come on Ori, what do you mean by "give away everything"? Israel has enjoyed a decade and a half of nearly unhindered expansion. Stopping that expansion is not "giving away everything". If you want peace, you have to make it happen. The party in power is the one who controls the process.

Well that has been the plan that they've articulated. The idea, as they've said themselves, is to spend like crazy on their pet items so that the country gets in such a fiscal mess that we have to cut back on the items that they don't like, like SS. If you haven't seen it, you HAVE to watch the first minute and a half about the Wall St. "pinata".

And if you look at the sections immediately above the "anti-Israel" section they have similarly cited examples of the UN-being pro-Israel. But regardless of whether you want to argue that the UN is either pro or anti Israel, the fact remains that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a big deal, with wide reaching impacts. Our country was attacked nine years ago and this conflict was one of the major reasons. It's a big deal and it's going to get attention. But your point about the UN being a joke, I'm not inclined to completely disagree. It's too un-democratic to be effective. They can repeatedly point out the problems which need to be dealt with but it makes little difference if a permanent voting member shoots them all down. Personally I put little weight on the UN's capacity to impart change. Let them document the war crimes but it's going to be up to each country's citizenry to hold their own leaders accountable. I'm going to keep pushing my leaders because I'm sick and tired of the hypocrisy. Next week may be another opportunity. The Palestinians and Israelis are at the peace table right now. If Israel ends the settlement freeze then the talks will collapse. Israel has the power right now. What will it do with it?

Their current session And press releases I'm not seeing any bias.

What difference will that make? Once the new POTUS gets briefed from the lobbyists and shown the video of the JFK assassination from new angle, it will be business as usual once again. The health care legislation is a perfect example. Obama had some great ideas on cost savings, such as bargaining for bulk purchasing on drugs. But he met with pharmaceutical and insurance industry leaders and all of a sudden, the teeth were ripped out of the reform before it even got an official proposal. It's like he sat down with them and said, "Ok, I'm the President and I campaigned on this stuff. You HAVE to let me pass something. What will you allow without crushing me and my party?" The plutocrats run the show. And since they have more "free speech" than the rest of us, that's not likely to change any time soon, regardless of party affiliation.

Thanks, I wasn't sure. When it comes to this topic some ridiculous stuff gets thrown in from time to time. I avoided Jeanne's link for that reason but clicked on yours and felt like I'd been had. Thanks for clearing that up. I have plenty to say on the topic but I don't have time to get into a long winded discussion with Ori again (Hi Ori. Hope you're well) or to rehash the same old, knee-jerk exchanges. I just hope the peace talks going on now between party leaders actually lead to something this time. I guess we'll know next week when we find out whether or not the settlement freeze will be extended.

I haven't read it yet but I've heard a few interviews. I'm not impressed. Most of it has the substance of a Miss America contestant calling for world peace. I want specifics on how they expect to be fiscally responsible, as in what SPECIFICALLY do they plan to cut. So far I've heard that they specifically want to cut taxes and spend more money on space invaders. Obama was specific on what he wanted when he promised "change". And now I know SPECIFICALLY what it is that he has failed to deliver. (Although I will cut him a bit of slack. He has an inept majority and a remarkably obstructionist minority in Congress to work with). I'll read the 21 pages this weekend. But my guess from what I've heard so far is that it's a political stunt (t'is the season) aimed at getting TV coverage and trying to keep the party from fracturing.

Are you serious?

John Paulson. Link posted above, my post #18something. Sorry to be so short but I have to run.

Agreed, and at the same rate as a dual income family making less than $68K.

I've yet to see a CEO work a 40 hour week. Those that are doing their job are putting in closer to double that. And at risk of sound elitist, the value of their work is vastly different. And the housekeepers are probably working at least 60 hr weeks as well because they need a second job to make ends meet. And yes, the jobs are vastly different. And the pay is vastly different. But 222,000:1 different? What I wanted to do was provide perspective to those who repeatedly state "the top earners pay the majority of the taxes". When you make 222,000 times what your housekeeper makes, a very small percentage of your tax will have a much great impact on the Treasury's balance sheet. A 1% increase would add $37M (admittedly the analysis is overly simplified but the scale isn't).

So? Your point being...? To provide some perspective.

I'm in a hurry today so somebody please check my math on this one. At $3.7 billion/yr the person cleaning the bathrooms in his office building at $8/hr would have to work for 222,355 years to make what he did in one year alone. edited to add: That's assuming that they both work 40 hr/wk.

It will never happen unfortunatly Israel will continue to commit such crimes against Palastinians and those who support human rights. Meanwhile the appologists will simply start banging on about Hamas rockets (Which I do not condone) whilst looking the other way when it comes to crimes commited by the state of Israel. It's hard to sum it up better than the way you put it. It will be business as usual. We'll continue to wield the double standard and then get offended when someone calls us on it. War crimes are war crimes.

I agree, there's comfortably well off and then there's uber-rich. Unfortunately the argument seems to limit itself to those making anything over $250,001 and small businesses that might get caught up in that figure. That's why the administration is lobbying hard for separate tax benefits for the latter. The idea is to return to the tax rate of a decade ago, back when we were thriving as a country. Right now we're in a tough spot fiscally and taxing people such as

And the red states (being more rural and hence, earning less income and paying less taxes in comparison) will continue to feed the blue states while being insulted by them. By skipbelt's definition, they don't work hard and/or have no ambition.

Thanks to failed "trickle down" economics, the top 1% owns 40% of the entire nation's wealth. Let that sink in for a minute. 1% of the people own almost half the money of the United States.

What term do you prefer then? Tithing?

You know what to do. If you want balance and reason in your news coverage, nay.....your LIFE.....you have to follow the comedians. http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/ http://www.keepfearalive.com/

Chump change by comparison. e.g. http://www.ctj.org/html/enron.htm Still abhorred?