The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why are Reuters and AP declaring this a "shocking" victory?

You'd have to be a fucking idiot - or a member of Hollywood like Steven "Revisionist" Spielberg - to think that the Palestinian rabble ever wanted peace with Israel.

Maybe some people will wake up to this fact. But I highly doubt it.

I agree that the Hamas success is not a "shock" -- although an outright majority was in doubt.

However, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hangs over everything, Hamas' victory had less to do with the Fatah policy towards Israel than you suggest.

The biggest reasons Fatah lost were pocketbook and QOL issues and the tremendous corruption and ineffectiveness of the Palestinian Authority. Fatah had been in charge for 13 years, and had made a damn mess of most things (with "help" from the virulent internal opposition). This was for many folks a vote to "throw the bums out" and try something new -- no more and no less.

I think that the need to actually govern the PA will eventually compel Hamas to moderate its positions.

S_A_M

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
* Coming as no surprise whatsoever to me, Club, Billmore, Spanky and Penske

You mispelled bilmore.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sexual Harassment Panda
You mispelled bilmore.

Actually, he's the one that spells it incorrectly.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
BTW, why aren't you celebrating? In an early poll, 51% of the country said they'd vote against Hillary Clinton if she ran in 2008. That's a early poll. She'll be at 65% by '08. And true to form, the Dem leadership is geared up to run her and sure as shit they can make that lead zeppelin fly.

Kiss the Democractic party goodbye.

I'd prefer that they put up someone viable so the GOP is forced to look for a "good" candidate this time.

and Al Gore is not that viable person.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'd prefer that they put up someone viable so the GOP is forced to look for a "good" candidate this time.

and Al Gore is not that viable person.

The Beltway Dems are all about Hill, aand they get to decide. Abramoff would beat her in the Midwest. Shit, Gene Simmons would be a great candidate against her. Where's Gary Coleman?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I agree that the Hamas success is not a "shock" -- although an outright majority was in doubt.

However, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hangs over everything, Hamas' victory had less to do with the Fatah policy towards Israel than you suggest.

The biggest reasons Fatah lost were pocketbook and QOL issues and the tremendous corruption and ineffectiveness of the Palestinian Authority. Fatah had been in charge for 13 years, and had made a damn mess of most things (with "help" from the virulent internal opposition). This was for many folks a vote to "throw the bums out" and try something new -- no more and no less.

I think that the need to actually govern the PA will eventually compel Hamas to moderate its positions.

S_A_M

2 - and once they have the governing under control then they can go back to pushing the jews into the sea

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Apparently the answer was "moving WMDs to Syria"*:

From the NY Sun:



* Coming as no surprise whatsoever to me, Club, Billmore, Spanky and Penske

I see it as the biggest non-issue of the year. The Democrats were looking for anything to critisize and they seized upon the WMDs.

1) There were plenty of other reasons to invade Iraq. Genocide and mass murder being just two that immediately come to mind.

2) Saddam had used WMDs before. No reason to think he had used them all up or wouldn't use them again if he had the chance.

3) With the way Saddam was acting with the inspectors, either Saddam was completely insane or he was hiding them.

4) There is no way US intelligence could know that there were no WMDs. How could any intelligence agency know what exists in every square foot of a country the size of Iraq.

5) During the invasion every level of the military was completely paranoid that Saddam would use them. The US army took unbelievable precautions to prepare for such an attack.

6) Bush and Cheney clearly believed that there were WMDs so no one "lied".

7) There could still be some WMDs out there that are well hidden (Again it is a big country) and they could have been moved to Syria.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
2 - and once they have the governing under control then they can go back to pushing the jews into the sea

What I don't get is why anyone expects any Palestinian in his heart not to want the complete destruction of Israel. Everyone in Fatah wants to get rid of Israel but realizes that it is not a realisitic expectation. Hamas is just saying out loud what every Palestinian really believes.

So why is support of Hamas such a shock?

The only reason why the Palestinians have ever or will ever agree to the existence of Israel is because there is a gun held against their heads. Why would anyone ever expect the Palestinians to volunatarily accept the existence of Israel as a permanenent institution?

[Replaced_Texan]

Byrd supports Alito

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Apparently the answer was "moving WMDs to Syria"*:


* Coming as no surprise whatsoever to me, Club, Billmore, Spanky and Penske

Funny, but I don't remember any Republicans arguing before the war that one of its great benefits would be delivering weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Must have missed that one.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
2 - and once they have the governing under control then they can go back to pushing the jews into the sea

Well, first things first, that's what the Koran says.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Well, first things first, that's what the Koran says.

You could blind all the Jews in Israel and those waterheads still wouldn't be able to push them into the sea. With the exception of 9/11, "Allah's Sword" has largely been of the foam novelty variety for the past 700 years.

They only "won" Afghanistan because the Russians ran out of money (and realized they were fighting for a useless arid dirt farm). If the Russians had located serious oil reserves to tap over there, there wouldn't be an Islamic soul alive in Afghanistan today.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Funny, but I don't remember any Republicans arguing before the war that one of its great benefits would be delivering weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Must have missed that one.

No, the argument was that we needed to invade before that happened, but then the UN diddled and dawdled.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Byrd supports Alito

Better yet, Byrd is now extremely concerned about mining conditions and the safety of miners - even though they've been mining in West Virginia for 150 years, and Byrd has been their Senator for 70 of those.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Funny, but I don't remember any Republicans arguing before the war that one of its great benefits would be delivering weapons of mass destruction to Syria. Must have missed that one.

Har Har.