Active Users:167 Time:19/05/2024 09:26:23 AM
I will try to be brief. Try. Legolas Send a noteboard - 16/11/2010 11:28:28 PM
On Israel and Palestine: first of all, I do think you mean Camp David and not Oslo, because Oslo didn't really go into much detail on the issues that matter, whereas Camp David did. And the Palestinians really could ask for more - and were under heavy pressure to do so. The right of return has been perhaps the most difficult issue - arguably, as there are so many difficult issues - preventing peace between Israel and the Palestinians, from the very first peace negotiations in 1949 onwards. Israel offered to let 100,000 Palestinians return at Camp David. Now, you and I may agree with them that they could not seriously have gone all that much higher - at least not orders of magnitude higher, as the Palestinians wanted. But since the Arabs and the Palestinians have kept insisting on that right of return for the past sixty years, for all of them, it IS understandable that the Palestinians wanted more, and hoped to get more. Foolish, but understandable. And I repeat my basic point: you may think the Palestinians turned down the best offer they were gonna get, and I may think that, but that doesn't make it an objective fact, and it doesn't mean their insistence to carry on fighting after that makes them somehow "worse than terrorists". They were not offered "their stated goals" by a long shot, and so the question of whether or not what they were offered was enough, is a subjective call.
I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but that remains a common topic of conversation in America, the country whose third President once looked forward to a revolution every four years. It probably always has been and probably always will be; "hunting clubs" aside, that's the reason the Second Amendment was written and remains part of the nations highest law. It's also why I want to be very careful of what I say and what I support, not just because of a pervasive and often paranoid intelligence community, but because the issue of whether rebellion is an urgent patriotic duty remains quite relevant to many Americans. I've no interest in a rebellion, and hence no interest in encouraging one, inadvertently or otherwise. We're still a long way from being unable to fix the system from within, IMHO, and I want to avoid any risk of implying otherwise.

Yeah, it really, really, really isn't like that elsewhere. :P
Reply to message
Subversive Websites - 13/11/2010 10:49:15 PM 1198 Views
"Intended or serving to subvert, especially intended to overthrow or undermine an established govt". - 14/11/2010 01:44:14 AM 594 Views
Re: Gee, thanks dad! *NM* - 14/11/2010 01:32:32 PM 446 Views
Well, I'm hoping I simply disagree with your diction rather than your motives. - 14/11/2010 03:36:57 PM 658 Views
Re: No, you disagree with my motives. - 15/11/2010 01:06:54 AM 665 Views
The Founding Fathers of the US? - 15/11/2010 10:18:32 AM 670 Views
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God". - 15/11/2010 01:15:33 PM 709 Views
I'm sure bin Laden completely agrees - 15/11/2010 01:32:53 PM 692 Views
When you give me an example of Jefferson murdering women and children that analogy will work. - 15/11/2010 01:49:04 PM 611 Views
yes because Jefferson was a PARAGON of virtue himself - 15/11/2010 02:17:58 PM 700 Views
I wasn't aware I'd made that statement. - 15/11/2010 02:25:27 PM 550 Views
nvm, I was going to argue but I have decided not to *NM* - 15/11/2010 07:46:42 PM 410 Views
So you are being completely subjective here? It is wrong, unless it is for a cause you support? *NM* - 15/11/2010 02:30:37 PM 337 Views
No, it's a question of precedence. - 15/11/2010 04:13:04 PM 578 Views
His analogy works very well, and you are still being subjective. - 15/11/2010 08:23:25 PM 808 Views
The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point. - 15/11/2010 09:17:01 PM 758 Views
Re: The precedence is inherent in the statement; that was Jeffersons point. - 15/11/2010 10:52:40 PM 580 Views
I don't believe that at all. - 16/11/2010 12:08:26 AM 489 Views
Re: As I mentioned numerous times. - 16/11/2010 11:52:36 PM 667 Views
Re: As I mentioned numerous times. - 17/11/2010 01:34:29 AM 655 Views
No, its relevancy is difficult to grasp. - 16/11/2010 07:19:11 AM 755 Views
Maybe I just have an unusual perspective. - 16/11/2010 04:15:39 PM 724 Views
I didn't know they bombed a SCHOOL!!! - 16/11/2010 04:31:24 PM 595 Views
Please. If there were any soldiers in the WTC on 911 it was coincidental. - 16/11/2010 04:40:51 PM 636 Views
perhaps, but not all important targets are military targets. - 16/11/2010 04:57:20 PM 774 Views
Not all important targets are LEGITIMATE targets either. - 16/11/2010 05:06:11 PM 598 Views
I don't wish one, but I hate sidebars - 16/11/2010 05:09:33 PM 643 Views
All about priorities; your call. - 16/11/2010 10:33:53 PM 560 Views
That's so many hours of my life I'll never get back. - 16/11/2010 10:41:55 PM 661 Views
This your first time on the CMB? - 16/11/2010 11:18:03 PM 605 Views
No, NOW I know what's going on! - 16/11/2010 04:36:04 PM 740 Views
Still doesn't work. - 16/11/2010 04:50:58 PM 734 Views
Those last sentences are going way overboard. - 16/11/2010 05:08:40 PM 598 Views
Terrorism is inexcusable and indefensible, but at least there's a LOGIC to it. - 16/11/2010 05:21:15 PM 697 Views
First of all, your generalizations were misguided. - 16/11/2010 05:40:55 PM 708 Views
Of course I disagree, but that's a different and older debate. - 16/11/2010 11:10:23 PM 854 Views
I will try to be brief. Try. - 16/11/2010 11:28:28 PM 656 Views
Heh. - 16/11/2010 11:55:40 PM 612 Views
mostly agree - 16/11/2010 11:18:14 PM 566 Views
. . . and now I'm thinking you're the one willfully misunderstanding. - 16/11/2010 05:36:15 PM 634 Views
Not willful, at least. - 17/11/2010 12:29:42 AM 610 Views
sorry - 16/11/2010 11:24:44 PM 654 Views
Well, you know what I was going on about, if that helps? *NM* - 16/11/2010 11:25:18 PM 395 Views
"Subversion" has the connotation of treason, however wrongly. - 15/11/2010 01:32:06 PM 680 Views
Re: Non-sequitur, non-sequitur, CAPS LOCK, opinion, CAPS LOCK. - 15/11/2010 10:45:41 PM 517 Views
Either my mind moves much faster than ya'lls, or ya'll are deliberately missing the point. - 16/11/2010 12:05:28 AM 678 Views
I am curious. - 16/11/2010 01:10:52 AM 538 Views
Argggh, ya got me! - 16/11/2010 05:11:41 PM 534 Views
the dictionary has -nia and -iums. - 16/11/2010 05:16:32 PM 638 Views
I prefer "millennia" but recall someone telling me that's not technically right. - 16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM 565 Views
well, in American English, they're apparantly both "correct" *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:13:40 PM 432 Views
In American English, almost anything is. - 17/11/2010 01:02:15 AM 690 Views
It is right. It's the one thing that's easy in Latin and Greek declensions. - 16/11/2010 06:33:12 PM 612 Views
You call then "neutral" over there? Interesting. *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:42:00 PM 427 Views
Neutral, neutrum, neuter, whatever. Details. *NM* - 16/11/2010 06:45:29 PM 378 Views
Do only neuter words end in -um? - 16/11/2010 06:57:39 PM 664 Views
Yes. I think so, anyway - been a good while since I had Latin. - 16/11/2010 07:12:09 PM 650 Views
Thanks. Maybe that's what I'm remembering. - 16/11/2010 07:17:05 PM 629 Views
IIRC, the number of "n"s was the issue. - 17/11/2010 01:06:24 AM 660 Views
Should definitely be two. *NM* - 17/11/2010 01:48:51 AM 348 Views
Ah, thanks. - 17/11/2010 02:08:08 AM 646 Views
Silly laptops.... - 16/11/2010 05:32:34 PM 732 Views
- 16/11/2010 05:35:22 PM 568 Views
I'm horrible about using "conjugate" as a blanket term. - 17/11/2010 01:09:34 AM 692 Views
I'm definitely missing the point. - 16/11/2010 06:58:17 AM 654 Views
Well, hopefully we've cleared things up now. *MN* - 16/11/2010 05:30:46 PM 680 Views
I don't know if it qualifies as subversive... - 14/11/2010 02:47:34 AM 763 Views
Re: That's not bad. - 14/11/2010 01:38:02 PM 638 Views
The Chap - 14/11/2010 01:58:27 PM 547 Views
Thanks. - 14/11/2010 03:04:49 PM 637 Views
All my subversive websites are religious. - 15/11/2010 02:26:42 AM 593 Views
Re: I'm certainly interested. - 15/11/2010 03:37:11 AM 622 Views
Well, okay then. - 15/11/2010 04:23:35 AM 689 Views
Some stuff I think is pretty neat: - 15/11/2010 07:24:41 PM 710 Views
Re: Noice, noice. - 15/11/2010 11:01:31 PM 642 Views
That first link is really good. - 15/11/2010 11:18:25 PM 735 Views
Re: Ha! - 16/11/2010 11:55:42 PM 541 Views
Re: Also, I like your poems. *NM* - 17/11/2010 01:02:27 AM 374 Views
Re: Dude. - 20/11/2010 02:14:38 AM 688 Views
you mean besides this one? *NM* - 15/11/2010 07:55:03 PM 280 Views
Re: I AM NOT SUBVERTING NEBHEAD!! - 15/11/2010 11:02:10 PM 635 Views
Re: William Faulkner would be unhappy with my thread. - 16/11/2010 08:29:42 PM 603 Views
My work here is done. - 16/11/2010 08:34:22 PM 560 Views
Re: Yes, it's fairly obvious that you need to respond. *NM* - 16/11/2010 11:40:10 PM 410 Views
I often wish I didn't. - 17/11/2010 01:49:33 AM 529 Views
I'm calling you out on this one. - 18/11/2010 12:06:17 AM 584 Views
It's not perfect, but it's the lesser of many evils, IMHO. - 18/11/2010 01:12:43 AM 629 Views
You people with your words. - 16/11/2010 08:34:17 PM 723 Views
. - 16/11/2010 08:54:22 PM 517 Views
Re: I still say we should start a band. - 20/11/2010 02:42:48 AM 651 Views
Re: Man, that attack on Cameron is brutal. *NM* - 20/11/2010 02:47:12 AM 358 Views
Re: Awesome. - 16/11/2010 11:38:29 PM 652 Views

Reply to Message