30 minutes ago, toolg said:

Some things never change...

This Daily Show clip from 9 years ago could have aired last night.

Here's the YouTube for it

On 10/12/2023 at 10:44 AM, Mike030270 said:

Skit 9 years ago

 

 

3 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

The poster / flyer for the rally apparently had a paraglider on it. Now consider the source and all that, but assuming that's true, it clearly crosses the line from general support for palestinian civilians into overt support for Hamas (and vis a vis terrorism.)

As I said the other day, either your objection to the attack the other day was because it was on civilians and not explicitly military targets in which case you should object to what's happening in Gaza too, or you object to specific groups of civilians being killed in specific ways which is a different position altogether.

Whether a kid dies from being shot point blank or from a bomb dropped from several hundred feet is a really arbitrary way of distinguishing what's an outrage and what isn't.

And objecting to some students in Washington are shouting at a tiny rally rather than our President and Congress giving active support to a withdrawal of food, water and power to two million people and deadlines to evacuate to Medecins sans Frontieres hospitals, your moral compass and sense of proportion have been utterly lost.

Yes the Israeli's had a right to respond, but they could do that with targeted assassinations of Hamas' leadership and a properly targeted strikes on specific targets, not by reducing the entire region to a single storey concrete shanty, that will do nothing for their security in the long term, and standing silent while they do it will do nothing for the west's security either, it's sowing the wind.

I'll leave you all to it now.

 

3 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Here's the YouTube for it

 

Yep.

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Criticism that is characterizing our response to Russia invading Ukraine last year as "projecting weakness" is 100% invalid. Criticism that implies we've been weak on Russia during the two Obama terms, but suddenly toughened up in Trump's term is 100% invalid. Criticism that pretends Trump would've done F all to provide meaningful aid to Ukraine in the same situation is 100% invalid.

Your first point has some merit, as I already stated.

But the rest is a mischaracterization of a statement made by Bill taken to the extreme. Given that I believe Bill has been on the record as firmly against Trump, I think you're going a bit off the rails in reading into his statement.

It was a single hyperbolic line that probably was meant to highly Obama as having been naive with the Russia reset.

Even Hillary would agree with that. 

 

55 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I don't think that's true. Broadly Biden has been good, but he's absolutely been overly conservative about sending certain kinds of munitions out of a fear that it will escalate to a more direct confrontation with Russia. 

I'm certainly quite happy it's Biden in there and not Trump, but that doesn't mean any and all criticism is invalid or disrespectful.

Saying that Hamas wouldn't have attacked Israel if it wasn't for U.S. policy, which was his ridiculous point, is invalid not to mention stupid. 

Hamas never needed an excuse to attack Israel. 

16 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

 

AND LO, THEY SHALL FACE SWIFT RETRIBUTION...

14 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Your first point has some merit, as I already stated.

But the rest is a mischaracterization of a statement made by Bill taken to the extreme. Given that I believe Bill has been on the record as firmly against Trump, I think you're going a bit off the rails in reading into his statement.

It was a single hyperbolic line that probably was meant to highly Obama as having been naive with the Russia reset.

Even Hillary would agree with that. 

He doesn't like Trump because he's "not strong enough on the second amendment" is what I recall his stance is. Hardly the criticism that Trump's corruption and ineptitude deserves. 

Obama was terrible on Russia. Trump was worse. 

7 minutes ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

As I said the other day, either your objection to the attack the other day was because it was on civilians and not explicitly military targets in which case you should object to what's happening in Gaza too, or you object to specific groups of civilians being killed in specific ways which is a different position altogether.

Whether a kid dies from being shot point blank or from a bomb dropped from several hundred feet is a really arbitrary way of distinguishing what's an outrage and what isn't.

And objecting to some students in Washington are shouting at a tiny rally rather than our President and Congress giving active support to a withdrawal of food, water and power to two million people and deadlines to evacuate to Medecins sans Frontieres hospitals, your moral compass and sense of proportion have been utterly lost.

Yes the Israeli's had a right to respond, but they could do that with targeted assassinations of Hamas' leadership and a properly targeted strikes on specific targets, not by reducing the entire region to a single storey concrete shanty, that will do nothing for their security in the long term, and standing silent while they do it will do nothing for the west's security either, it's sowing the wind.

I'll leave you all to it now.

I object to Hamas, a terrorist organization, killing innocent civilians. I likewise object to to Israel killing civilian Palestinians in retalation. This isn't that hard. The flyer clearly depicted a paraglider so there is absoiutely no ambiguity on what the intended message was. You won't see me at a rally cheering on the siege tactcs being employed on Gaza, and that's why attacks like this are so frustracting because we all know escalation is inevitable. Israel isn't going to suffer its worst attack in 50 years and do nothing. Hamas, likewise, is content to embed itself within civilian populations regardless of the risk to their own people they're endangering. The students at these universities should realize there's no need to "pick a side" in this conflict. Attending one of these rallies is already a stupid waste of time, but even more so when the flyer has a F'ing terrorist depicted on it FFS.

1 hour ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

As I said the other day, either your objection to the attack the other day was because it was on civilians and not explicitly military targets in which case you should object to what's happening in Gaza too, or you object to specific groups of civilians being killed in specific ways which is a different position altogether.

Whether a kid dies from being shot point blank or from a bomb dropped from several hundred feet is a really arbitrary way of distinguishing what's an outrage and what isn't.

And objecting to some students in Washington are shouting at a tiny rally rather than our President and Congress giving active support to a withdrawal of food, water and power to two million people and deadlines to evacuate to Medecins sans Frontieres hospitals, your moral compass and sense of proportion have been utterly lost.

Yes the Israeli's had a right to respond, but they could do that with targeted assassinations of Hamas' leadership and a properly targeted strikes on specific targets, not by reducing the entire region to a single storey concrete shanty, that will do nothing for their security in the long term, and standing silent while they do it will do nothing for the west's security either, it's sowing the wind.

I'll leave you all to it now.

You Palestinian shills are a simple lot.  You'll say you're not a Palestinian shill, that you're straight down the middle consistent, but that's a crock.  Your moral equivalencies are idealistic, meaning that they're only valid during ideal situation, which this is obviously not.  Sure, in an ideal situation the Israeli's would guarantee the safety of every Palestinian civilian.  In an ideal situation Hamas never would have attacked.  They did, destroying any hope of an "ideal" situation, and destroying your simplistic nonsense.  Since Hamas has staged themselves among Palestinian civilians, using the civilians as human shields and refusing to let them evacuate, your simplistic nonsense would only guarantee that Israel cannot respond, and would leave them utterly helpless.  

"Who all need it, who
Who all need it, you
Who all need it, who all need it (yes you do)
You all breathe it, we all need it
Are you ready for a good time
Then get ready for the night line
Are you ready for a good time
Then get ready for the night line
Are you ready for a good time"

AC-DC

3 hours ago, Toastrel said:

 

How shocking which side he chose.

Well he damn well better, he’s the one propping them up 

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

You Palestinian shills are a simple lot.  You'll say you're not a Palestinian shill, that you're straight down the middle consistent, but that's a crock.  Your moral equivalencies are idealistic, meaning that they're only valid during ideal situation, which this is obviously not.  Sure, in an ideal situation the Israeli's would guarantee the safety of every Palestinian civilian.  In an ideal situation Hamas never would have attacked.  They did, destroying any hope of an "ideal" situation, and destroying your simplistic nonsense.  Since Hamas has staged themselves among Palestinian civilians, using the civilians as human shields and refusing to let them evacuate, your simplistic nonsense would only guarantee that Israel cannot respond, and would leave them utterly helpless.  

You might like this. Sam Harris on the sin of moral equivalence

https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/338-the-sin-of-moral-equivalence?utm_source=braze&utm_campaign=2023_w41_newContent_338

2 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

As I said the other day, either your objection to the attack the other day was because it was on civilians and not explicitly military targets in which case you should object to what's happening in Gaza too, or you object to specific groups of civilians being killed in specific ways which is a different position altogether.

Whether a kid dies from being shot point blank or from a bomb dropped from several hundred feet is a really arbitrary way of distinguishing what's an outrage and what isn't.

And objecting to some students in Washington are shouting at a tiny rally rather than our President and Congress giving active support to a withdrawal of food, water and power to two million people and deadlines to evacuate to Medecins sans Frontieres hospitals, your moral compass and sense of proportion have been utterly lost.

Yes the Israeli's had a right to respond, but they could do that with targeted assassinations of Hamas' leadership and a properly targeted strikes on specific targets, not by reducing the entire region to a single storey concrete shanty, that will do nothing for their security in the long term, and standing silent while they do it will do nothing for the west's security either, it's sowing the wind.

I'll leave you all to it now.

You have to ask yourself why Hamas acts this way.

Why conduct a surprise raid on children, who are subsequently quickly defeated in hand-to-hand combat (kudos to whoever trained these fierce shaheed!) then scurry home with soft target hostages and cocoon within layers of innocent people who you won't allow to leave?

Why?

Because SOME people (wink wink, hint hint) are all too willing to scream "see! see! the Israelis are just as bad!" when the inevitable collateral casualties occur.

Just checking in, did CVON solve the centuries of conflict and bloodshed in Gaza yet?

47 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Just checking in, did CVON solve the centuries of conflict and bloodshed in Gaza yet?

not yet, but it's down to two candidates:

1. Stem Cells
2. Howie Roseman

4 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

As I said the other day, either your objection to the attack the other day was because it was on civilians and not explicitly military targets in which case you should object to what's happening in Gaza too, or you object to specific groups of civilians being killed in specific ways which is a different position altogether.

Whether a kid dies from being shot point blank or from a bomb dropped from several hundred feet is a really arbitrary way of distinguishing what's an outrage and what isn't.

Yes the Israeli's had a right to respond, but they could do that with targeted assassinations of Hamas' leadership and a properly targeted strikes on specific targets, not by reducing the entire region to a single storey concrete shanty, that will do nothing for their security in the long term, and standing silent while they do it will do nothing for the west's security either, it's sowing the wind.

I'll leave you all to it now.

I agree with the first part of your post. I object to all civilians being targeted and killed. Where the difference lies, for me, is that Hamas is specifically targeting Israeli citizens. They’re capturing, torturing, raping, and killing civilians on purpose. Israel is killing civilians because they’re attacking Israelis and/or being used as human shields by Hamas. The point blank shot of the Palestinians that were stoning Israelis was awful, but at the same time FAFO. You can argue about level of force used, but they were being aggressive towards a nation, a military, and a people that were just attacked and called to war. I fully expect a swift and strong response. If you don’t want to get targeted then don’t become an attacker in a war. Once the civilians begin attacking, they are no longer afforded the same considerations in my mind. Same situation applied during the Vietnam War when the kid a soldier was talking to might just as soon try to blow him up or shoot him. There is no such thing as overly aggressive response to an individual directly attacking you in war time IMO. 
 

As for the 2nd part of your post quoted above, it is an idealistic and completely unrealistic view. It is wholly impossible and impractical to perform Hamas has continually and consistently throughout time positioned their military forces within schools and hospitals among civilians to avoid devastating targeted attacks. Israel has consistently provided warning before attacking those locations forfeiting tactical advantage to minimize civilian loss. When given the opportunity to elect a governing body in 2006, the Palestinians elected Hamas. Hamas has maintained control since then with no subsequent elections and, to my knowledge,  no organized opposition or attempts to remove them from power from within. At this point, following the most deadly attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust, my opinion is that it is time that the reap what they sow. Israel has, again, provided warning before attacking and in my mind they have no further expectation or obligation to continue doing so. 

The Irish culturally appropriating native Americans 

the shame

if you gonna be woke, be woke calhoun

55 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

not yet, but it's down to two candidates:

1. Stem Cells
2. Howie Roseman

Dog whistler 

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Dog whistler 

what?! 

collectively both solve all the world's problems 

On 10/12/2023 at 5:57 PM, Arthur Jackson said:

There's an interesting irony here.

In a sense, senorita spicyboobies is partially correct.

There are Christian fundamentalists in the US that have been deliberately fomenting discord in the middle east.

But NOT from an antisemitic standpoint.

Rather, there are a number of them that have been growing impatient waiting for the Rapture and are worried that it could take another couple millennia at this point. So they are doing everything they can to usher in armageddon (read: har meggido).

hit

AOC is, of course, a total moron and basically an inversion of reality as you say, but to say the rapture crowd is somehow responsible for problems in Israel is laughable.

Yes, Zionist neo-cons lead some evangelicals in support of Israel. It’s definitely a voting block, though in the grand scheme of things, mostly insignificant.

To say they (evangelicals) are fomenting discord in the Middle East is giving them way too much credit. They donate money and are reliable political support for AIPAC approved Republican types. They have no actual international reach to influence Israelis, Hamas, Palestinians, etc. towards war or attacks. They basically just give donations.

6 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Just checking in, did CVON solve the centuries of conflict and bloodshed in Gaza yet?

Hell if I know I've been in my shelter all day. Nothing happened? Shocking. 

14 hours ago, Cochis_Calhoun said:

As I said the other day, either your objection to the attack the other day was because it was on civilians and not explicitly military targets in which case you should object to what's happening in Gaza too, or you object to specific groups of civilians being killed in specific ways which is a different position altogether.

Whether a kid dies from being shot point blank or from a bomb dropped from several hundred feet is a really arbitrary way of distinguishing what's an outrage and what isn't.

And objecting to some students in Washington are shouting at a tiny rally rather than our President and Congress giving active support to a withdrawal of food, water and power to two million people and deadlines to evacuate to Medecins sans Frontieres hospitals, your moral compass and sense of proportion have been utterly lost.

Yes the Israeli's had a right to respond, but they could do that with targeted assassinations of Hamas' leadership and a properly targeted strikes on specific targets, not by reducing the entire region to a single storey concrete shanty, that will do nothing for their security in the long term, and standing silent while they do it will do nothing for the west's security either, it's sowing the wind.

I'll leave you all to it now.