Making Baby Jesus Cry

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It's in the dossier, isn't it? If not, make a note of it.

That balt likes giving facials? Or that you like swallowing? I don't pay much attention to the preferences of the females around here, and don't remember having that much info on balt.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That balt likes giving facials? Or that you like swallowing? I don't pay much attention to the preferences of the females around here, and don't remember having that much info on balt.

The swallowing. We're still working out the facial thing.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The point remains that the majority of Palestinians do not want peace. If anything, the majority of Palestinians would like to see innocent Israeli citizens murdered.

I don't see how the answer to that question is more relevant to the question of the desires of the Palistinian people than the next question to your same poll, in which over 50% support a dual state, and fewer than 20% support a single state controled by Palistinians (i.e., driving the Israelis to the sea). I'll admit, that's higher than I'd have liked to have seen.


Q.12 Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine cannot be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine wherein Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solution do you prefer?

Total

West Bank

Gaza

N=1201

N=761

N=440
Two-state solution: an Israeli and a Palestinian

51.9

59.7

38.4
Bi-national state on all of historic Palestine

25.1

21.2

31.8
One PalestinianState with one nationality*

16.2

11.2

24.8
Islamic State*

3.1

2.8

3.6
Do not know

2.4

3.4

0.7
No answer

1.3

1.7

0.7

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That balt likes giving facials? Or that you like swallowing? I don't pay much attention to the preferences of the females around here, and don't remember having that much info on balt.

Martini-glass chest hair. I'm expecting a viewing at ACL. If I recall correctly from the dossier, he is also tall (on the internet, at least). I'm not sure he has shared his sexual likes/dislikes publicly, but I trust that RT loves the boards enough to have slipped a detail or two into his dossier. I'll have greater insight after a couple of booze-soaked days in Austin.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
What's up with the Peace Prize references? Seems to me that a lot of very good people have won that award notwithstanding some awardees who in historical retrospect seem like poor choices. .. Is your intent to tar Arafat or the Peace Prize or the Swedes ...

1) Not to be picky, but its a group of Norwegian politicos
who pick the Peace Prize. The Swedes do the other ones.

2) The selection of former President Carter was IMHO nothing more than a public thumb in the eye to current President Bush. This was a poor choice too.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I should know better than to engage you when you're in this mood, but you've been in this mood since the sock agreement was made and I doubt you'll ever stop.

What's up with the Peace Prize references? Seems to me that a lot of very good people have won that award notwithstanding some awardees who in historical retrospect seem like poor choices.

Is your intent to tar Arafat or the Peace Prize or the Swedes or do you just think that liberals blindly adore anyone who has won that prize in the same way we Americans should respect anyone who wins the Presidental Medal of Freedom, the highest award that can be bestowed on our nation?

I am not in a mood.

The references to the Peace Prize are a mocking denigration of the culmination of the liberals (more in Europe but also the US) effourts to draw a moral equivalency between the PLO and Israel. These liberals took a mass murderer, a man bent on genocide, a man with a record of killing non-combatants, including targetting school children, going back 40 plus years, a man who effectively introduced the concept of hijacking as a political tool to the terrorists agenda, a man who denigated the Olympics by turning it into a crime scence, and made him a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

there is no retrospect here. The people who supported Arafat, the people who broke bread with Arafat and the people who's effourts at legitimatizing him to the point that his historical legacy is Nobel Peace Prize winner instead of babykilling terrorist knew going in who he was. To his credit despite sometimes putting some icing on the shitcake he was, he never strayed far from his true belief of the righteousness of driving all the jews into the sea. But his supporters in the West were willing to overlook the massive shitcake and see only the thin layer of icing. These people have de-legitimised the Nobel Peace Prize. Unless they were to rescind his award (which would make no sense, as there was no mistake, he was who he was when he got it) I can't look at it with any respect. that doesnt undercut any winners' legitimate accomplishmets. It has the meaning of Lawrence Olivier winning a people's choice award.

My point is to point out the dangers of the moral relativity that the Clintons and their pals so love.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) Not to be picky, but its a group of Norwegian politicos
who pick the Peace Prize. The Swedes do the other ones.

2) The selection of former President Carter was IMHO nothing more than a public thumb in the eye to current President Bush. This was a poor choice too.

Bush was one of the few world leaders in the last 40 years to cut Arafat out of the process. For that moral clarity of a vision of what peace would require he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Although to the 59 Million on the record W supporters in the Red States of America, such a dubious award would actually be an anathema.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't see how the answer to that question is more relevant to the question of the desires of the Palistinian people than the next question to your same poll, in which over 50% support a dual state, and fewer than 20% support a single state controled by Palistinians (i.e., driving the Israelis to the sea). I'll admit, that's higher than I'd have liked to have seen.

"The Israelis are mistaken if they think we do not have an alternative to negotiations. By Allah I swear they are wrong. The Palestinian people are prepared to sacrifice the last boy and the last girl so that the Palestinian flag will be flown over the walls, the churches and the mosques of Jerusalem."

--- P.L.O. Chairman Yasser Arafat, in a speech given on 6 August 1995 at a party to celebrate the birth of his daughter (Haaretz, 6 September 1995; The Jerusalem Post, 7 September 1995)

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc

Q.12 Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine cannot be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine wherein Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solution do you prefer?

"The struggle will continue until all of Palestine is liberated."

--- Yasser Arafat (Voice of Palestine Radio, 11 November 1995)

Interesting. As is the following : If you were to visit www.fateh.net, the Web site of Al-Fatah, Arafat's faction of the PLO, and understood Arabic so that you could navigate it, the first image you see is the Fatah emblem: a map of "Palestine" behind crossed guns and above a grenade. But the country depicted is Israel, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. (On the same Web site you can read the Fatah constitution, which says the organization's goal is the "complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist . . . existence.")

Fatah isn't the only PLO faction whose emblem features a map of Palestine that comprises all of Israel. Most of them do, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Palestine Liberation Front, Al-Saika, and the PLO itself. (You can see the PFLP logo at www.pflp-palestine.org ).

[Penske_Account]

"Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine whether someone likes it or not, and whoever does not like it, let him drink from the sea of Gaza."

--- P.L.O. Chairman Yasser Arafat, in a speech given at a party to clelebrate the birth of his daughter (Palestine Broadcasting Corporation, 6 August 1995)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Bush was one of the few world leaders in the last 40 years to cut Arafat out of the process. For that moral clarity of a vision of what peace would require he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Although to the 59 Million on the record W supporters in the Red States of America, such a dubious award would actually be an anathema.

Presumably, their distaste at this hypothetical anathema would be soothed by the sight of Ambassador Bolton detonating the top 10 floors of the UN Building, so at least there's that.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not in a mood.

The references to the Peace Prize are a mocking denigration of the culmination of the liberals (more in Europe but also the US) effourts to draw a moral equivalency between the PLO and Israel. These liberals took a mass murderer, a man bent on genocide, a man with a record of killing non-combatants, including targetting school children, going back 40 plus years, a man who effectively introduced the concept of hijacking as a political tool to the terrorists agenda, a man who denigated the Olympics by turning it into a crime scence, and made him a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

there is no retrospect here. The people who supported Arafat, the people who broke bread with Arafat and the people who's effourts at legitimatizing him to the point that his historical legacy is Nobel Peace Prize winner instead of babykilling terrorist knew going in who he was. To his credit despite sometimes putting some icing on the shitcake he was, he never strayed far from his true belief of the righteousness of driving all the jews into the sea. But his supporters in the West were willing to overlook the massive shitcake and see only the thin layer of icing. These people have de-legitimised the Nobel Peace Prize. Unless they were to rescind his award (which would make no sense, as there was no mistake, he was who he was when he got it) I can't look at it with any respect. that doesnt undercut any winners' legitimate accomplishmets. It has the meaning of Lawrence Olivier winning a people's choice award.

My point is to point out the dangers of the moral relativity that the Clintons and their pals so love.

It's important to read translations of his speechs made in arabic, rather than listen to his speechs made in English. Most concillatory speeches were made in English. Most tof the people who understood them live in the US or Europe, not the Middle East.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) Not to be picky, but its a group of Norwegian politicos
who pick the Peace Prize. The Swedes do the other ones.

2) The selection of former President Carter was IMHO nothing more than a public thumb in the eye to current President Bush. This was a poor choice too.

Sweeds, Norwegians, Nordic socialist bastards, right? Thanks for the correction.

You don't think that Carter has done good things on a humanitarian basis since his presidency ended? I remember you seriously advocating Bono a few years back, and I agree that his work has been apparently self-less and good. I sort of think that Carter has redeemed his rather bad presidency with his subsequent private good looks, the lust in his heart notwithstanding.

And Carter didn't get an invite to the Pope funeral, so they're even now, I guess.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
You might be able to, but the bottom line is, Sharon attempts to act through the international legal process, Sharon is the product of democratically elections and Sharon is not trying to kill all of the Palestinians. On the latter, if he was, he wouldn't be pulling out of Gaza.

Which is my point. Pulling out a bunch of (undated) quotes may not be particularly insightful into the current attitudes of a leader. Especially a dead one.

In other words, you could try to find a more incisive, less repetitive, and even funny way to make your point.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I sort of think that Carter has redeemed his rather bad presidency with his subsequent private good looks, the lust in his heart notwithstanding.

Man, you have low standards.

Sorry, Balt.