j44
-
Posts
598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by j44
-
-
The Emir provided funds...not rockets. Iran sells the rockets...Egypt is the usual point of entry via Sudan or similar areas accessible by water.
This gets closer. My point was that Hamas takes a lot of things into consideration when making such decisions. I took your original comments as implaying that just because Qatar gave them money they did this. They need to take Egypt, abbas, bibi, Iran., Syrai etc etc etc into consideration.
it is way more complicated than Qatar causing this.
especially considering the Emir's comments on unification with the PA
-
That isn't proof. Hamas didnt do this just because Qatar gave them money.
-
Yeah, and they couldn't come from anywhere but Qatar.
And Hamas hasn't done this before without Qatar.
-
$400 million buys a lot of rockets...some of which are striking Tel Aviv. That's like 60km from Gaza...
Could buy. You are just assuming they bought rockets with it and that is why they took their current actions. You are jumping to pretty broad conclusions. With no proof.
-
Really? Anyone showing up at your house lately with $250 million plus? I'd be rather pleased and offering coffee. Some reports claim $400 million...I'd be breaking out the good wine at that point...lol.
I'm not saying Hamas wouldnt be pleased but I don't see how this caused the current situation. Or played a big part. At all.
-
This latest boldness started after the Emir of Qatar visited Gaza and pledged some $250 million to assist Hamas in 'reconstruction'...as it was termed. A new sugar-daddy.
I don't think this makes any sense.
-
Yeah, Israel moving so soon after the election makes you wonder what their bigger game is. It probably isn't as simple as detering rockets from Gaza. I am guessing that they won't send in ground forces but who knows?
Morsi's response in Cairo will be interesting. he may have commented already but I haven't heard anything yet.
This could be Israel\s way of stretching Iran even thinner. I\m not so sure opening another front is good for Israel but that depends on what Egypt and Turkey say and do.
I'm also interested in the US response.
Interesting times to say the least.
-
I was closest at 305-310...I wanted to predict higher but chickened out...
early on I thought Obama would win Florida but then he appeared to be losing it...so I lowered my guesstimate...
I didnt want to be too optimistic (I\m too superstitious) I didn't give him Florida but even if I did I would only have put him at 315 or so. I thought Va was way more in play.
-
did anyone guess around 332 for Obama? I wasn't even prepared to say 300 and I'm a big supporter.
-
So be it. I guess I misjudged you.
I very well could be wrong. I just didn't feel that way after this thread.
-
But getting back to the original point - Do you think it's a bad thing that a show about Joe America can get as much attention as a show about Joe Politician? - because you've already agreed that the conventions are a "show."
I don't see how that show getting attention is a good thing.
-
She does, very obviously. I'm not sure the purpose of the pretence to the contrary.
I can't help but think she doesn't care that much.
-
But here's the thing. Not everyone reacts the way bud/the buds of the world did; and if you think it's a problem that not every American cares what the world thinks about everything, I personally don't see that as a bad thing. I don't think it's our obligation to care what the world thinks about everything, and I think it would be detrimental to our country to have that attitude. Do you care what the world thinks regarding everything Canada does?
I'm going to ignore everything else because I think this is the most important part.
Not everyone will react the way bud did but a lot (a lot!) of people will. Even people who have a favorable view of the United States.
I care about what image my country has throughout the world. And you should too.
-
Actually, I think it has the substance of a "show." Seriously. I think the whole point is to make a show of the candidate and to provide the opportunity to make a speech and not much else. I would never let a convention sway my vote.
Or perhaps someone who made the comment that you did shouldn't be so sensitive/defensive regarding the response it elicited, because if you do have a problem with politician's exploiting their children too, I didn't get that from your response.
What people choose to pay attention to is also part of the process. Everything doesn't warrant equal attention. But that's not what I was saying - I was just pointing out that I think it's a positive thing about America that a little Honey Boo Boo can take away from a political "show." If you disagree, so be it. But why must I either agree with you - or else there's something wrong with my POV? I do like that about the U.S. - that there is this kind of opportunity. Do I like the show? No. I like the availability of the opportunity.
Yeah, that is part of the point.
I wasn't being sensitive or defensive. I was saying that I thought you were being condescending.
And it should be kinda obvious that I have a problem with anyone exploiting their children. Don't you see that as what the people on the show are doing?
I don't think saying that you are happy that a show like that can exist and that it is a good thing that it takes attention away form politics is the same thing.
I didn't say you had to agree with me or anyone else. But again, you opened yourself up to a debate like this when you started this thread. I don't know if you can really say it is wrong for us to disagree with you.
People paying attention to that show is NOT part of the political process.
-
Ya know, earlier I thought about posting something about that Harvard class on Congressional politics where half of the students got caught cheating. I thought it was an amusing story. Not just that it was a class on politics but on congress. I didn't post it because I didnt think it deserved its own thread.
-
Do you think I care what the bud's of the world think? That's one of the things I love about the U.S., too - generally speaking, we don't care. I don't agree with what bud says, so why would I care if I "opened myself up to it?" I made a point - I'm not looking for worldwide agreement; that's not the purpose of this thread.
Really? And the reality - ie: "image" is - Americans have opportunities to compete with politicians - their show vs. the politician's "show." I think people are focusing too literally on the Honey Boo Boo show itself, rather than what I am saying. Anyone who would watch the Republican Convention as some sort of 'revelation' doesn't understand what it is all about, IMO. Politics is also sometimes for "show," and I think Americans get that.
you are missing my point. It isn't just the bud's of the world that react that way. And part of the problem is that some Americans dont care what the world thinks.
I didnt say you cared if you opened yourself up to it. I was implying that such a foolish post would result in such barrage of attacks. And I was wondering if you actually saw them coming or not.
Of course people understand that politics is for show sometimes. We don't need this comparison with the show to point that out.
-
Why? If it's all for show - same as Honey Boo Boo- is it better to watch the Republican Convention? I pay attention to politics - but I don't pay attention to the conventions. To me they are as much a 'show' as Honey Boo Boo, but at least Honey Boo Boo is supposed to be a show, purely for entertainment. Furthermore, as I said, Joe America is making money off it as opposed to Joe Politician. Is that a bad thing?
I suggest you observe how politicians are putting their kids out there for political gain.
How is watching a convention that is, even to your admission, for show - being "politically engaged?"
Seriously. You think politicians are using their fame and wealth for "causes and charities??" More to the point, you believe that was the purpose of the [Republican] Convention?
1. To compare the two as you are doing you must think the RNC has ZERO substance. Is that right?
2. Someone who started a thread like this shouldn't be so condescending. especially since I didn't say I didn't have a problem with other people exploiting their children.
3. Paying attention is part of the process.
4. Are you seriously reading my statements like that or are you purposely twisting them? I was referring to the royal family and I didn't say that was what they were doing at the RNC.
-
Watching it doesn't mean hanging on every word.
x2
-
defines america.
the american culture and society is flushing down the toilet and some people are proud of it.
Aw, whether you think this argument is legitimate or not you opened yourself up to it and must have seen it coming.
As one who thinks American has done, and still does, great things for the world you posting this does not exactly send a great message. It just re-enforces an image a lot of people have. I don't think that image is correct (at least not in most cases) but it puts it out there.
Snooki didn't build that...
This is the best line I've read in ages.
-
Edited to add: As I said, the Republican Convention was all for show. Do you think otherwise? Do you think it would be a positive thing if Americans hung on every word?
Of course it was for show and then don' have to hang on every word but it is far better to pay attention to the RNC than the other show.
You mean the opportunity for some rube family to exploit their little child for money? And the appetite for people to want to watch that sort of trainwreck?
^This.
You're comparing being politically engaged to watching TLC?
^and this
But what about the fact that the royal family are muti-millionaires? - simply by virtue of their birth? And the head of the said family is your head of state - how does that make you feel? At least Snooki got there by the opportunities afforded in our countries. The royal family got there simply by birth.
If the family on this show uses their fame and wealth to work for causes and charities this is a comparable situation. Until then, it is not.
-
Is this sarcasm?
-
I didn't watch it, but I read about it, and of course that's what really had me wondering if he was even aware of who he's endorsing - or if perhaps he's starting to lose it.
Possibly. I guess he gave a good speech endorsing Romney about a month ago in Iowa. The campaign thought it went over well and asked him to do it again. He obviously didnt do that.
I kinda feel bad for the guy.
-
Romney's speech was excellent. Definitely the best line was "4 years ago President Obama promised to lower the sea levels and heal the earth. I promise to help you and your family."
That theme will continue throughout the campaign!
I still think it was a good line that wasn't delivered as well as it could have been. I think it would have hit better if the crowd didnt laugh after the first part because by the time Romney finished it he didn't sound sincere.
I still think his speech was just good. Or good enough. But I would expect that most people thought that is what he would deliver. A good one. Not great. He isn't a great speaker. But good is enough to at least keep the numbers where they are now and maybe, maybe move the numbers up a tiny bit.
-
The report button is very broken and the spam on this site has hit a critical level. We need another moderator full time, just to take care of spam if anything.
A moderator who is able to be here frequently.
Do they even have to be here frequently? There was so much yesterday that wouldn't it have helped to just have someone check in on the site a couple times a day? Even once in the afternoon and once at night.
Is Israel about to start another Gaza carnage?
in The Rest of the World
Posted
lol