Politics: A new beginning

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Why out? Why not in? (This is related to, but slightly different from, GGG's settlement point.)

Because its harder to police a population than a border. So, if you need to police something, its better not to do it in the midst of your enemies.

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bridge of love
Paula Jones' suit was certainly bankrolled for political reasons, but after all the Monica stuff, do you doubt that he dropped trou for Paula?

One hardly needed monica to believe Jones's accusations. Clinton's problem with her is that, as a state employee, she had a hook under federal law. The rest of the women he manhandled presumably descided that Arkansas law didn't clearly support a cause of action for being a cad.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
they cannot allow the non-Jewish citizenry to outnumber the Jewish citizenry. If it does, they either have to designate non-Jews with some lower, non-voting status, or just become another arab state with a significant Jewish population.

You are right, this will simply never happen. They will always maintain a majority or jews. This is one of the 2 or so issues to which no one has found an answer and it is one of the reasons why I believe there will never be peace in the middle east.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Because its harder to police a population than a border. So, if you need to police something, its better not to do it in the midst of your enemies.

Hello

No, dumbass, why don't they set a border and then move their people in from the border to create the buffer area? The thing where I said I was kinda saying what GGG said (re: settlements) should have clued you in.

Edited to add that while you are working on sorely needed self-improvement, you should brush up on the distinction between "its" and "it's." You should be able to handle that by now -- it's not like it's as obscure as the hyphenating issues the more advanced students are working on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So how about a poll over here, as to which politician squwicks us out the most:

(1) Ahnuld; offering to stick your tongue there is by far and away the worst pickup line on the planet
(2) Billy; just look at Monica and Paula and tell me there's someone something he won't do
(3) Kennedy; longevity counts in the world of squiwickiness

Any other choices?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So how about a poll over here, as to which politician squwicks us out the most:

(1) Ahnuld; offering to stick your tongue there is by far and away the worst pickup line on the planet
(2) Billy; just look at Monica and Paula and tell me there's someone something he won't do
(3) Kennedy; longevity counts in the world of squiwickiness

Any other choices?

Packwood?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Packwood?

Usually.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, dumbass, why don't they set a border and then move their people in from the border to create the buffer area? The thing where I said I was kinda saying what GGG said (re: settlements) should have clued you in.

Edited to add that while you are working on sorely needed self-improvement, you should brush up on the distinction between "its" and "it's." You should be able to handle that by now -- it's not like it's as obscure as the hyphenating issues the more advanced students are working on.

Giggle giggle, snort snort. I'm not sure if you've seen the news in the last 55 years or so, but Israel is not at peace with the, uhm, occupied territories. So why move your people when you can move your enemies? I mean, whats the point of having enemies if you can't be mean to them? Unnderstand now?

And what in the world did you mean by "[t]he thing where I said I was kinda saying what [someone else] said". Is that like a fourth-hand version of what you really meant?

Hello

[sgtclub]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99337,00.html

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Giggle giggle, snort snort. I'm not sure if you've seen the news in the last 55 years or so, but Israel is not at peace with the, uhm, occupied territories. So why move your people when you can move your enemies? I mean, whats the point of having enemies if you can't be mean to them? Unnderstand now?

And what in the world did you mean by "[t]he thing where I said I was kinda saying what [someone else] said". Is that like a fourth-hand version of what you really meant?

Hello

And they are having such success with the policy of shoving aside the people around them?

Congrats on the better grammar, but in this country the period goes inside the quotes.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And they are having such success with the policy of shoving aside the people around them?

Congrats on the better grammar, but in this country the period goes inside the quotes.

Thanks for the grammar tips sweetie, does that rule always hold true? U no I du my best to check my righting on thees boreds.

And what makes you think that they haven't been succesful when they've shoved people aside? Shoving Arab armies aside seemed to work fine. Besides, its rather unpavlovian for you to respond about problems you might believe they've previously encountered "shoving aside the people around them", when I'm suggest that one alternative would be to set a precedent by doing so.

I mean, who are you saying they've shoved aside before? Aside from the military, I don't think they've ever come close to doing what I'm suggesting.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No one would or should say thats th e_only_ reason we invaded iraq was because Hussein was a bad man -- that is merely the reason that makes the invasion morally justified.

I remain mystified by the reasoning of people who think that the failure to depose every dictator and fight every morally justified conflict everywhere on the globe somehow renders suspect or hypocritical our actions to depose certain dictstors or fight certain conflictx for moral reasons. It is an odd sort of grade-school reasoning that utterly fails to take into account the complexity of the world and the realistic constraints on U.S. action.

I'm sorry, but the morality you describe makes no sense to me either. If we invaded Iraq for good reasons, why do we need to add this stuff about him being a bad man to make it "moral." If we think the other realpolitik reasons are necessary and sufficient, why aren't they moral, too? I'm not saying we ought to depose every dictator in the world. I'm saying that it cheapens the idea of morality in foreign affairs if it's used as a fig leaf for decisions that are really made for other reasons.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm sorry, but the morality you describe makes no sense to me either. If we invaded Iraq for good reasons, why do we need to add this stuff about him being a bad man to make it "moral." If we think the other realpolitik reasons are necessary and sufficient, why aren't they moral, too? I'm not saying we ought to depose every dictator in the world. I'm saying that it cheapens the idea of morality in foreign affairs if it's used as a fig leaf for decisions that are really made for other reasons.

Primarily, I clean my desk because it is messy, and because order is conducive to efficient work. That I know that my CEO will be stopping by later doesn't cheapen the validity of my cleaning urges - it merely adds impetus to the decision.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is there a name on the ballot that Californians would be happy to have as governor?

I thought about voting for Ueberroth anyway, but it seemed like a silly gesture.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Primarily, I clean my desk because it is messy, and because order is conducive to efficient work. That I know that my CEO will be stopping by later doesn't cheapen the validity of my cleaning urges - it merely adds impetus to the decision.

So you think we should invade Zimbabwe?