Massive Obama win in SC [Archive]

Knowle of 4U

01-27-2008, 10:41 AM

Oh!
Of course you mean Hillary...:rolleyes:
She had the lead before SC's vote today:
Clinton leads Obama in the overall delegate count, 237 to 140, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Bruce

I can't remember which news I was watching last evening when the SC Primary results were announced but it was so shamefully represented. According to reuters, Obama won in a landslide with nearly 2x what Hillary got. But here, the news slanted it; Obama won (no mention of the landslide, and it was all due to the "fact" that blacks got out to vote, (I guess those in Idaho's media think all blacks are uni-lithic). Sorry to rant a bit about this, but that is just the most racist P O V whether presented by our ignorant media or whether it is the excuse that hill/bill are planning on citing.

I actually don't want either Hillary or Obama, but the treatment Obama is getting about his half of his ethnicity is disturbing.

NuclearShadows

01-27-2008, 11:10 AM

I can't remember which news I was watching last evening when the SC Primary results were announced but it was so shamefully represented. According to reuters, Obama won in a landslide with nearly 2x what Hillary got. But here, the news slanted it; Obama won (no mention of the landslide, and it was all due to the "fact" that blacks got out to vote, (I guess those in Idaho's media think all blacks are uni-lithic). Sorry to rant a bit about this, but that is just the most racist P O V whether presented by our ignorant media or whether it is the excuse that hill/bill are planning on citing.

I actually don't want either Hillary or Obama, but the treatment Obama is getting about his half of his ethnicity is disturbing.

well, what would you expect? The Statesman view and choices of news is just Pablum....

Knowle of 4U

01-27-2008, 11:10 AM

Another thought that could be posted in any of about six threads here, is that the MSM is controlling who the main candidates are, and have been from the start.

I'm so confused by the fact that most primary voters seem to more influenced by the MSM than by their own intelligence. I mean, talk to almost anyone in almost any party and they will say they are tired of seeing so much money changing hands regarding the candidates and their corporate supporters; and yet they go to the polls and virtually ignore those that couldn't spend their way to becoming media darlings. Makes no sense to me. If we are really sick of the monetary ties from corporations and other group entities on our politicians, we should be voting for those that don't accept their monies.

Knowle of 4U

01-27-2008, 11:12 AM

well, what would you expect? The Statesman view and choices of news is just Pablum....

Yeah, I know, but it is nonetheless disturbing that a landslide is so carelessly and wrongly slanted. I hope I never become de-sensitized to being angry about such things.

GUS

01-27-2008, 11:36 AM

I believe that anyone who makes under $40,000 a year and votes for anyone but JOHN EDWARDS is voting against their own self interests. Hillary and Obama, like the GOP candidates are both driven by corporate dollars and have done little to stop outsourcing or aid to the unemployed. Hundreds of thousands of American families are financially strapped because of lost jobs and unemployment benefits which have run out.

In a poor state like IDAHO I am shocked that the GOP triumphs as they do little for the needy. Ya think the smart pioneers got to the coast and left the feeble and lame brained behind?

Knowle of 4U

01-27-2008, 11:43 AM

Gus, I agree 100%. It has always seemed strange to me that Idaho is so red. I guess it is a religious choice because it clearly isn't financial or political outside of religion. Particularly since the repubs are now no longer the fiscally responsible government party.

JIMV

01-27-2008, 04:16 PM

I moved here from a true, blue state because they had taxed folk in a way that makes any economic problems in Idaho look non existent. 1 person in 6 received a pay check straight from the government and business was fleeing as fast as they could. My property tax on my $225 home was over $4000 and due to go up another 4 or 5 % again this year. For that I got well paid bureaucrats, non profits living on the government dime, and teachers making 1/3 more than the average family made in my city. Don't talk 'red' to me. I am pocketing thousands more here on less incoem because we do not have the socialism of Maine in Idaho.

GUS

01-27-2008, 05:46 PM

JIMV

01-27-2008, 06:58 PM

Idaho is very top heavy with state/federal/military paychecks. My property tax on my $115K has risen to over $4000 and the rental I use for retirement income that I bought for $64K costs $2,240 a year in taxes.

Idaho pays 6% sales tax which is 1% higher than MAINE and the people in MAINE don't get taxed on groceries.

Retired old farts love IDAHO because areas other than ADA, Kootenai and Blaine Counties can be had for a song. Sadly ADA county which pays more than its share in state tax has to put up with bad roads because all the RED GOP politicians holdback monies from this highly populated DEM area so some farmer can have a wonderful freeway out to his haystacks.

Maine counties tax automobiles as personal property every year. They assign the car a value that is associated with the MSRP and not the actual purchase price. The 'homestead exemption' in Maine is $13,500 (Idaho is about 100K). You are taxed on all value over that and the median home price is higher. You reach the top Maine income tax rate of 8.5% (Idaho top rate is 7.8%)with a princely salary of $16,750. The only retirement exemption you get from the income tax is a $7000 break on military pensions. (idaho exempts $38,088) Other than that you are taxed on every dime. I could go on. There is nothing not taxed or regulated there.

The total percent of ones income taken by state and local taxes is $13.5 making Maine the highest taxed state compared to income in the country.

Erika

01-27-2008, 09:42 PM

Thanks for the reply.

JIMV

01-27-2008, 11:15 PM

Thanks for the reply.

No, that is the only thing that Idaho does that is worse than Maine when taxes are concerned.

Erika

01-27-2008, 11:23 PM

But the GOP aren't going to get rid of it. Think of the $ they are raking in.

NuclearShadows

01-31-2008, 06:40 PM

Obama supports eliminating criminal penalties for use or possession of marijuana. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/NATION/896961936/-1/RSS_NATION_PO) See videos…..

NuclearShadows

02-02-2008, 08:09 AM

So, just as I am not sure if moveon.org backing Obama helps him, I am not sure if this helps him either.
The Grateful Dead are coming out together for the first time in four years to support him. (http://www.phillesh.net/) I miss Jerry…

http://www.lisa-und-georg.de/mediac/400_0/media/Jerry~Garcia.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000002VJH.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

JIMV

02-02-2008, 08:43 AM

Heh, the dems have a choice between two raving socialists. That said, there is a difference more substantive than gender or race here. Only one of your choices is a crook and thats not Obama (as far as I know)

GUS

02-02-2008, 10:01 AM

Yep, the REPUBLICANS have a choice between a raving old man warhawk, a religious fruitcake and a Mormon who changes his mind like Larry Craig changes toilet stalls and wants the Mormon cult to take over first America and then the world.....

Bruce McAuley

02-02-2008, 10:11 AM

Or do you think Obama would be easier for the Repubs to beat or blackmail, rigged voting machines and all?
Just wondering...:confused:

Bruce

NuclearShadows

02-02-2008, 10:12 AM

JIMV

02-02-2008, 11:13 AM

Or do you think Obama would be easier for the Repubs to beat or blackmail, rigged voting machines and all?
Just wondering...:confused:

Bruce

No, I dislike both and Hillary is the more formidable candidate because she is more ruthless and inclined to crookedness, often a winner in elections. The thing is, if the country is to be run by democrats, there is no real advantage to that democrat being a criminal.

GUS

02-02-2008, 11:58 AM

Americans are very amenable to have crooks and law breakers running the country as exemplified by the hideous law breaker George W. Bush---AWOL, cocaine snorting, DUI alcoholic and that was before he took office. Bush has committed more criminal actions while in office than both Clintons, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Harrison "Pete" Williams, Hugh Addinezio, Jim Wright and Larry Craig.

Bruce McAuley

02-02-2008, 02:24 PM

"...the more formidable candidate...is more ruthless and inclined to crookedness, often a winner in elections."-Jim

How true, say I.:cool:
Good to see you're not blinded by partisanship.;)

Bruce

JIMV

02-02-2008, 07:20 PM

Bottom line remains..If we have to have a socialist, why a crooked one?

Bruce McAuley

02-02-2008, 07:56 PM

Why not an honest one?
Bush is neither a Conservative nor honest though.
Really Jim, "A Socialist"???
Now Kucinich, maybe...:cool:
But Hillary a "socialist"????
Spare me the drama and hyperbole, please.
She's bought and paid for as much as McCain or Romney. Obama is also.
We all know it's a facade, Jim.
They will NOT be elected by you and me.
They will be elected by the large corporations, covertly and overtly with whatever money it takes.
You see where the Iraqi Parliament members have been offered $5 million EACH to pass the "hydrocarbon Law" and give the oil to Exxon?
Let's get real, Jim. We both agree it's about the money and power, don't we?
""...the more formidable candidate...is more ruthless and inclined to crookedness, often a winner in elections."-Jim
Why are we electing crooks, Jim?
From either side?

Bruce

JIMV

02-02-2008, 09:01 PM

Issue isn't about Bush and Bush is not running. If the dems want to elect a socialist, they should pick an honest one. Simple point.

Bruce McAuley

02-02-2008, 10:35 PM

Issue isn't about Bush and Bush is not running. If the dems want to elect a socialist, they should pick an honest one. Simple point.
Do you really want me to start calling Romney and McCain fascists in response to your socialist slur about Clinton and Obama?
They all belong to the Get Along Go Along Party. No Socialists nor Fascists about them.
Political Whores.

Bruce

NuclearShadows

02-03-2008, 05:36 AM

Do you really want me to start calling Romney and McCain fascists in response to your socialist slur about Clinton and Obama?
They all belong to the Get Along Go Along Party. No Socialists nor Fascists about them.
Political Whores.

Bruce

It is hard to argue against the perception of many that this administration and the war in Iraq was planned by the neoconservitives/neofascists . And they are the grand children of Leo Strauss (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3011profile_strauss.html) and Leon Trotsky (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=52&contentid=2905). Trotskycons unite!

Their dirty little nest is called the Project for the New American Century and their evil spawn litters the Whitehouse like field mice…. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Centu ry) So maybe it’s time for a bit of socialism for a change to replace the last eight years of fascism…

McGyver

02-03-2008, 11:42 AM

It is hard to argue against the perception of many that this administration and the war in Iraq was planned by the neoconservitives/neofascists . And they are the grand children of Leo Strauss (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3011profile_strauss.html) and Leon Trotsky (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=52&contentid=2905). Trotskycons unite!

Their dirty little nest is called the Project for the New American Century and their evil spawn litters the Whitehouse like field mice…. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Centu ry) So maybe it’s time for a bit of socialism for a change to replace the last eight years of fascism…

Well Said NS.....and I'll drink to that. PNAC needs to be talked about much more often than it is. And the American People have to fully understand the impact of this Evil, Destructive yet highly organized Organization. It never ceases to amaze me, how many people have never even heard of PNAC, when they have had such a profound impact on our country over the past 10 years especially!

Luckily, I believe the VAST MAJORITY of the American People believe the time has come for change as well! TIME FOR A CHANGE AND THE TIME IS NOW!

lenny

02-03-2008, 11:47 AM

Isn't it a little early to be drinking Mac? :p

lenny

02-03-2008, 11:50 AM

Do you really want me to start calling Romney and McCain fascists in response to your socialist slur about Clinton and Obama?
They all belong to the Get Along Go Along Party. No Socialists nor Fascists about them.
Political Whores.

Bruce

Funny Bruce, because I would pretty much call them all fascists. :o Maybe "Corporatists"?

McGyver

02-03-2008, 12:02 PM

Funny Bruce, because I would pretty much call them all fascists. :o Maybe "Corporatists"?

Well Lenny, I'll tell you one thing, it won't be Ron Paul or Ralph Nader that will do the most to "fix" the Mess that George W. Bush & Company have gotten us into over the past 7 year, because THEY won't be elected President of the United States of America.

In order to "DO ANYTYHING," First you gotta get there! And THEY won't. So I'm going with someone I think CAN get there, and WILL make a difference!

************************************************** ************************************************** *

lenny

02-03-2008, 12:40 PM

Well Lenny, I'll tell you one thing, it won't be Ron Paul or Ralph Nader that will do the most to "fix" the Mess that George W. Bush & Company have gotten us into over the past 7 year, because THEY won't be elected President of the United States of America.

In order to "DO ANYTYHING," First you gotta get there! And THEY won't. So I'm going with someone I think CAN get there, and WILL make a difference!

************************************************** ************************************************** *

You voting for Obama then?

McGyver

02-03-2008, 03:02 PM

You voting for Obama then?

Not necessarily, I happen to believe that either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can "get there," and both would "make a difference!"

************************************************** ************************************************** *

lenny

02-03-2008, 04:36 PM

Not necessarily, I happen to believe that either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama can "get there," and both would "make a difference!"

************************************************** ************************************************** *

Don't screw up, Democrats, Barack Obama is your man (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3294433.ece)

GUS

02-03-2008, 05:15 PM

Polls show that two-thirds of Americans think the country is ready for a female or black president........ When a third of the electorate tells you "we're" not ready for a woman or an African-American commander-in-chief, they really mean that they won't vote for one. John Edwards is more likely to beat Romney or McCain than either of his history-making rivals, just by showing up with pale skin and a Y chromosome.

But even aside from electability, Edwards ought to be the Democratic frontrunner. His populist campaign, bashing corporations and free-trade deals that have led to a decline in wages, seems perfectly timed for an economy everyone admits is in a recession. (In truth, the current downturn began with the 2000-2001 dot-com crash, but whatever.) His platform offers more red meat for the party's liberal base than Clinton's or Obama's: total withdrawal from Iraq in nine months, Euro-style health care, full financial aid for students admitted to public colleges and universities.

Barack Obama, like Clinton's legislative record is dismal—he repeatedly voted to send billion after billion of war dollars to Iraq. His high-flying rhetoric has the dubious distinction of inspiring us to ... to ... what? His soaring oratory, purchased on the cheap from 26-year-old speechwriters, signifies nothing. Sure, America needs a black president. But it doesn't need one who thinks, as Obama does, that the only thing wrong with our war in Iraq is that we're not wasting lives and taxdollars in Afghanistan instead. You can read more of Ted Rall's article in the Boise Weekly paper which came out on Wed. and is on the internet.

NuclearShadows

02-04-2008, 05:29 AM

Here I am treading on dangerous ground bringing this subject up on the forum, but what the heck.
You don't hear much from the candidates about this.
I would like to know what they have to say.
I would hope that the next president would actually do something different.

Full article HERE (http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/01/29/gaza/)

Excerpt about Obama and the current Palestinian/Israel situation.......

......Even the most progressive candidate, Barack Obama, went out of his way to take Israel's side. In a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Obama urged the United States not to allow a resolution condemning Israel's illegal collective punishment of the Palestinians to pass unless it also acknowledged Palestinian rocket attacks, which Israel's latest closure was a response to. "Israel is forced to do this," Obama wrote.

Obama's objection to the resolution as one-sided was legitimate -- up to a point. Of course the Palestinian rocket attacks that have killed 18 Israelis in four years are morally indefensible. But as usual with American pronouncements about anything involving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, Obama's letter completely failed to address the context of those attacks, including the harsh Israeli military actions (including extrajudicial executions) in Gaza that have killed more than 816 Gazans, including 379 noncombatants, since January 2006. And, of course, it failed to mention the most crucial fact: Gaza has been under a brutal occupation for decades.

But even leaving those matters aside, Obama's claim that Israel was "forced" to impose a total siege on the population of Gaza to try to end rocket attacks by Palestinian militants is simply false. Israel was not "forced" to do that any more than America was "forced" to invade Iraq. Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself against the Qassam rocket attacks. But it was not forced to cut off power, medicine and food to do that. It chose to impose that siege (with Bush's obvious, if unspoken, blessing) because it hoped that by punishing the people of Gaza, they would overthrow their Hamas-led government.

One need not defend Hamas to recognize that "sending a message" by punishing the people who live under its rule is a textbook case of collective punishment, which is illegal under international law. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert not only confirmed that this is Israel's policy, but unabashedly revealed its purely retributive nature. "We won't allow a situation in which people in Sderot walk around in fear day and night, while Gazans lead a completely normal life," Olmert told members of his ruling Kadima party. "We won't allow for a humanitarian crisis, but have no intention of making their lives easier. And the harder their lives, excluding humanitarian damage, we will not allow them to lead a pleasant life. As far as I am concerned, all of Gaza's residents can walk and have no fuel for their cars, as they live under a murderous regime."

JIMV

02-04-2008, 08:59 AM

I don't trust any democrat on Israel.

NuclearShadows

02-04-2008, 09:16 AM

I don't trust any democrat on Israel.
What exactly does that mean?

Bruce McAuley

02-04-2008, 09:19 AM

I don't trust any democrat on Israel.
But he's not a Democrat, I forgot.:rolleyes:
Why should Israel matter? We gave them nukes a long time ago, they can defend themselves just fine.
AIPAC pays off all the candidates equally well.
Not one candidate will be able to ignore Israel.
Maybe we could convince them to move their country to the Texas Gulf Coast, whadda ya think?:cool:

Bruce

NuclearShadows

02-04-2008, 09:22 AM

Don't screw up, Democrats, Barack Obama is your man (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/andrew_sullivan/article3294433.ece)

From the Obama web site (http://www.barackobama.com/index.php) his opinion on Israel and the Palestinians.. No mention of the Palestinians.... Good song though...

* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America?s strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
* Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel?s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria?s involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel?s right to protect its citizens.
* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

NuclearShadows

02-04-2008, 09:32 AM

From Obama energy plan (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf). He would build nuke plants.

Quote: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon
generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table.

lenny

02-04-2008, 10:12 AM

I don't trust any democrat on Israel.

Why not? They all have the same stance. The only "mainstream" Dem I can think of that has dared to say we should take an evenhanded approach to the Israel/Palestine issue is Jimmy Carter, and he was smeared as an anti-semite for saying so.

lenny

02-04-2008, 10:15 AM

From the Obama web site (http://www.barackobama.com/index.php) his opinion on Israel and the Palestinians.. No mention of the Palestinians.... Good song though...

* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama strongly supports the U.S.-Israel relationship, believes that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America?s strongest ally in the Middle East. Obama supports this closeness, stating that that the United States would never distance itself from Israel.
* Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel?s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria?s involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He believes strongly in Israel?s right to protect its citizens.
* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

Hey NS, don't all the Presidential candidates (except Paul of course) pretty much have the same stance on the issue? That being who can pander and grovel the most to AIPAC? I'm sure there are minor differences in what they say, but politicians can rarely get elected without the backing of the Israel Lobby.

lenny

02-04-2008, 10:26 AM

NuclearShadows

02-04-2008, 10:46 AM

And my reference to the Sullivan article was that as an outside observer (not a Dem or Repub) it's pretty obvious who the Dems need to nominate. The candidate that is a potential uniter; not the one who is a gauranteed divider. Seems like they're at the point where they're about to blow it again and pick the candidate that they see as the safer bet. I hope they don't blow it again.

Nuclear Shadows, now that Dennis has dropped out, have you decided who you might vote for?

Well most likely we can’t convince Kucinich to register as a write in candidate. So that leave a person with having to choose “the lesser of evils” and I hate being put in that position.

Then I would morally be put into a position in my own mind of being an accomplice to a crime (http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_Accomplice.html) Even if you don’t commit a murder you are found almost as guilty.

Then I could go to the philosophical avenue questioning if it is just as bad karma to vote or not to vote. Akama, inaction or renunciation, is said must be avoided. So given that I must act and accept my karma, I think I may act by not voting at all. Does that make sense. I may choose to not choose, given that making a choice for someone I believe is not honorable would make me an accomplice of their future crimes…. Or not…. :rolleyes:

lenny

02-04-2008, 11:08 AM

Then I could go to the philosophical avenue questioning if it is just as bad karma to vote or not to vote. Akama, inaction or renunciation, is said must be avoided. So given that I must act and accept my karma, I think I may act by not voting at all. Does that make sense. I may choose to not choose, given that making a choice for someone I believe is not honorable would make me an accomplice of their future crimes…. Or not…. :rolleyes:

Absolutely that makes sense. If you didn't vote, the hardcore partisans would give you plenty of grief, but they'd just be projecting their own insecurities and shortcomings at you so that wouldn't mean anything. Reminds me of a post (http://www.ranprieur.com/) I read the other day on a blog that I like to read for it's "off-the-wall" perspective. It'd definitely touch on the philisophical avenue.

"One more thing on this morning's post: I vote on the "do anything you can" principle, but I completely respect people who don't vote. Of all the things you can do to change the world, voting is one of the weakest -- especially in America. And it's even worse if voting makes you feel like you've done your whole civic duty. The saying "If you don't vote you can't complain" is stupid on a number of levels, one of which is that complaining is more likely to make a difference! But elections do serve to teach us how the system works, if we look under the surface."

JIMV

02-04-2008, 11:24 AM

Why not? They all have the same stance. The only "mainstream" Dem I can think of that has dared to say we should take an evenhanded approach to the Israel/Palestine issue is Jimmy Carter, and he was smeared as an anti-semite for saying so.

Evenhanded impies equality of morality, action and cause amongst the participants. There is none. The Israelies are civilized and the arabs are barbarians. I would not have been evenhanded with Hitler v Britain either.

lenny

02-04-2008, 11:36 AM

Evenhanded impies equality of morality, action and cause amongst the participants. There is none. The Israelies are civilized and the arabs are barbarians. I would not have been evenhanded with Hitler v Britain either.

Racist comments aside, you forgot to explain why you "don't trust Dems on Israel" when we all know that outside of Ron Paul, all the presidential candidates basically have the same stance.

NuclearShadows

02-04-2008, 11:54 AM

The Israelies are civilized

Civilized???

Since September 2000, Israel has killed near 4,000 Palestinians, 660 were children and wounded 30,000.

Destroyed 25,000 homes.

Endless check points, blockades and withholding of food and water.

Using collective punishment which is against international law. ( http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/collective-pun.html)

Violation of scores of United Nations resolutions including the newest one (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/01/un-rights-council-criticizes-israel-for.php ) which of course the United States is boycotting. (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/01/israel-us-boycotting-un-rights-council.php )

And we wont even get into the land issues and A and B areas….

Notus Lotus

02-07-2008, 11:13 AM

Evenhanded impies equality of morality, action and cause amongst the participants. There is none. The Israelies are civilized and the arabs are barbarians. I would not have been evenhanded with Hitler v Britain either.

I see your true colors, shining through.

Not that I haven't seen them before, but I have to say, this is a new low for you, Jim.

McGyver

02-07-2008, 02:18 PM

Evenhanded impies equality of morality, action and cause amongst the participants. There is none. The Israelies are civilized and the arabs are barbarians. I would not have been evenhanded with Hitler v Britain either.

WOW....I remember my Mom explaining to me that the way to tell if someone was a "Bigot" was whenever anyone said something derrogatory about, not just a person, but a whole entire group of people, Such as "all blacks, all hispanics, or all Arabs...." She went on to explain to me that you don't "lump" all people into one group and call them all "bad, evil, cheap, or barbarians."

Jim, I have to agree with Notus Lotus on this one....You HAVE reached a "New Low." :(

************************************************** ************************************************** *