See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Another Backhanded Obama Endorsement!
Source:
Newsmax
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 25, 2008
Author: staff (nobody wants to own this piece lo
Post Date: 2008-03-25 17:23:54 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 245
Comments: 15
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
Will someone plz explain to me why the 'stineans turned down 98% of what they wanted when offered by ehud barak and instead chose more death???
You're simply not stable.
Do you always spout the Zionist line of propaganda like that?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You're simply not stable. This is one of the many reasons no one will sell Obama any life insurance.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Whatever line it is please show me how it's wrong. ehud barak offered yassir "I bugger boys" arafat 98% of what the 'stinians wanted (with the BJ the Bent One in tow) and the 'stinians chose death. Please show me where I'm wrong, Barry-boy.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Someone gave me a copy of Barry's audio book (in Barry's voice) the other day. Can't wait to listen to it! /s
There they go again.
The truth is that responsible Southerners have deliberately weakened their own defense because of their unwillingness to raise the underlying problem. They talk of states’ rights when they should be talking anthropology, and they do so out of instinctive human kindness. There is a point at which kindness imposed upon ceases to be a virtue.
Sam... Been doing your math homework again, huh????
Needs more cowbell! LOL, good one.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Because the Palestinians would have had to forgo the right of return for displaced Palestinians. It was no offer at all, really.
As a practical matter, he couldn't. The problem wasn't just the famously provocative settlements that Israel's government had long been sponsoring in the West Bank. Barak was willing to dismantle some of those and consolidate others. But there had also been more organic, more "innocent" settlement, in the greater Jerusalem area and elsewhere. Further, for political reasons, Barak couldn't possibly surrender control of the part of the Old City that contains the Western Wall of the Second Temple—the wall you see Jews praying at in file footage. So, Barak hung on to key parts of the Old City and proposed that, before surrendering the West Bank, Israel would annex 9 percent of it, leaving 91 percent for the Palestinians. That was his last, best offer, at Camp David. But wait. Didn't Barak, as his defenders say, offer Arafat land from Israel proper in return for the annexed 9 percent? Yes. But the terms of the trade bordered on insulting. In exchange for the 9 percent of the West Bank annexed by Israel, Arafat would have gotten land as large as 1 percent of the West Bank. And, whereas some of the 9 percent was choice land, symbolically important to Palestinians, the 1 percent was land whose location wasn't even specified. I'm trying to imagine Yasser Arafat selling this 9-to-1 land swap to Palestinians—who, remember, are divided into two camps: the "return to 1967 borders" crowd and the "destroy the state of Israel" crowd. I'm not succeeding. And Arafat would have had to explain other unpalatable details, such as Israeli sovereignty over Haram al-Sharif (site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque), which had been under Arab control before 1967 and is the third-holiest site in Islam. The Camp David offer also had features that kept it from amounting to statehood in the full sense of the term. The new Palestine couldn't have had a military and wouldn't have had sovereignty over its air space—Israeli jets would roam at will. Nor would the Palestinians' freedom of movement on the ground have been guaranteed. At least one east-west Israeli-controlled road would slice all the way across the West Bank, and Israel would be entitled to declare emergencies during which Palestinians couldn't cross the road. Imagine if a mortal enemy of America's—say the Soviet Union during the Cold War—was legally entitled to stop the north-south flow of Americans and American commerce. Don't you think the average American might ask: Wait a minute—who negotiated this deal? If you call me Barry-boy, does that entitle me to call you Zioboy?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
#2. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
Here's one reason to vote for Obama
#3. To: _______ (#1)
#4. To: _______ (#2)
Here's one reason to vote for Obama
#5. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
he makes the Zios go nuts.
#6. To: ghostdogtxn, Brian S, iconoclast, Elliott Jackalope, vast rightwing conspirator (#0)
#7. To: aristeides (#3)
Do you always spout the Zionist line of propaganda like that?
#8. To: Sam Houston (#5)
#9. To: TwentyTwelve (#4)
#10. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
serious questions and doubts are once again being raised
#11. To: Sam Houston (#5)
This is one of the many reasons no one will sell Obama any life insurance.
#12. To: TwentyTwelve (#4)
Lord Acton
#13. To: _______, ghostdogtxn, Jethro Tull, christine, rowdee, robin, ferret Mike, lodwick (#1)
Will someone plz explain to me why the 'stineans turned down 98% of what they wanted when offered by ehud barak and instead chose more death???
#14. To: _______ (#7)
David Horowitz, editor of the Jerusalem Report, recently said on the NPR show To the Point that Barak offered "basically all the territory the Palestinians were purporting to seek." This is a widely repeated claim—that Israel offered something like the "pre-1967 borders" that had long been the mantra of Palestinians who favored a two-state solution. But for Palestinians to get all the territory that had been under Arab control before the war of 1967 would mean getting a) all of what we now think of as the West Bank; b) all of East Jerusalem (which some consider part of the West Bank); and c) all of the walled "Old City" that lies between East and West Jerusalem. Barak never offered any of those things—not at Camp David, not at Taba.
#15. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest