|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Which is one more thing than I can say for you
Posted on: 2008/3/26 2:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
And no, I don't think Hannity is a neo-nazi. I just think he's a closed-minded, hateful, hypocritical windbag with a radio show.
Posted on: 2008/3/26 2:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You're the one who started in with the absurd histrionics about liberals wanting to "exterminate the Jews." It's nice that you have Israeli friends. With all due respect, I think I probably have more experience with and knowledge of Israel and Judaism than you due to my family (both mine and my wife's). I have known liberal Israelis, conservative Israelis and everything in between. I read Israeli newspapers fairly often and read both the liberal and conservative opinions. I'm not really sure what your point is with the article you posted - so what if a cable company decided to carry FoxNews? What does that have to do with anything? I've hardly met anyone in my life who supports "the destruction of Israel." Most people, in the long run, want a two-state solution of some kind and the devil is in the details. Raving-mad posts like yours contribute nothing to the debate.
Posted on: 2008/3/26 1:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I am an American Jew and my wife is an Israeli Jew. We are both liberals. Everyone in my family is a liberal, including my father, who is a Rabbi. Obviously none of us want the destruction of Israel - I'm going there next month to visit my wife's extended family! Most American Jews are liberals and most support the state of Israel's existence. You do not seem to know what a Jew or an Israeli Jew actually is, or what a liberal is. Nor do you even know how to spell Israel. I suggest you stop posting about things you know nothing about.
Posted on: 2008/3/25 21:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, Hannity is a bigot who shamelessly panders to Jews because he thinks he can win a few over to the conservative side. Huffington Post has Jews on staff, so I'm not sure what "facts" you're talking about.
Posted on: 2008/3/25 2:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
[/quote]
Totally different. Nice try to dodge a potentially huge issue, though. This is not going away and will only be amplified going forward if Obama is nominated. The dude will have to convince America that he's not a black separatist radical in disguise, and a Harvard-educated Marxist in Democrat clothes.[/quote] Well, I don't think a majority of Americans believe he's those things, and I don't think you do either. And he doesn't have to convince every last nutjob out there, he just needs to win the election.
Posted on: 2008/3/19 17:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
First of all, taxes are not "penalties."
Second, why should income from investing be treated any differently than any other income? Third, I don't think we ought to be pretending like a day trader is the same thing as a venture capitalist who helps a new business get off the ground. A lot of people who trade stocks are not doing anything that genuinely benefits the economy, they're just playing horses with the market. In fact, frenzied speculation is what leads to bubbles and collapses. Fourth, while equities markets are an important part of our economy, they are not the meat of it. Most Americans are dependent on a paycheck and equities are at most an afterthought for them. Although no one wants to see the market collapse, fueling stock market growth should not be our top priority.
Posted on: 2008/3/17 23:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The unchecked foolishness of Wall Street is in part the fault of deregulation, which, to be fair, has been a trend under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
You already mentioned the war so no need to beat that point to death. Our LACK of universal healthcare is actually already coming with a huge pricetag. It's sending good jobs to other industrialized countries because our current system costs employers too much. As for the rise of India and China, sure, nothing we can do to stop it, but maybe we could at least invest more in education in order to remain competitive. The Republicans have basically just waved the white flag of surrender on this issue, because let's face it, they serve multinational corporations that don't care who they employ or support and have no particular loyalty to American interests. If you think I'm starry-eyed about what our next president -- very likely a Democrat -- can accomplish, you're wrong. I'm a pretty cynical liberal. But I'm still going to pick the person who might at least try to turn things around over the person who promises more of the same.
Posted on: 2008/3/17 3:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
And almost everything you're bringing up is in large part the fault of the last eight years of Republican rule. So remind me again why anyone would want to vote for John McCain?
Posted on: 2008/3/17 2:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Exactly. They've got nothing on Obama so you're trying to tarnish him by association and speculation. And the funny thing is it's mainly going to play with people who wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway.
Posted on: 2008/3/15 4:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Barack Obama for President
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I don't know if you're a Jew yourself, but as a Jew and a firm Obama supporter, I'd like to ask that you not mis-use the term "jew-hater". Just like I won't call you a "racist" for not liking Obama.
Criticizing Israel for its treatment of Palestinians is not the same thing as "hating Jews," any more than criticizing China for its treatment of Tibet or Taiwan is "hating Asians." As for this speech, Wright made it, not Obama. My Rabbi at home said dozens of things I strongly disagreed with. His views do not refelct mine. Obama has already denounced the speeches. And btw, Obama has expressed strong support for Israel.
Posted on: 2008/3/14 23:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
(crickets chirping)
Posted on: 2008/3/8 3:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
But 678 has to do with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, not with any supposed non-compliance with inspection or possession of WMDs (even assuming we really believed that they had them, which I'm not sure we did). It makes sense that force would be "necessary" to directly repel an invasion of another sovereign state. It is not clear why it was "necessary" in 2003.
Your point about the individual states deciding what is "necessary" is a clever one, I'll give you that. But it seems sort of obvious that that doesn't mean the member states have free reign to do absolutely anything they want and not be held to any sort of standard at all. I know we're beating a dead horse here, but let's not mutilate it too.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 20:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds fifteen years before we invaded Iraq and had not used WMDs since -- by the way, at the time he gassed his own people we fully backed him. I'm not saying he was a particularly nice or reliable guy, but this is hardly a justification for war. 1441 does say "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990)" but the operative words are "recalling" and "necessary." The members of the security council did not all agree that so-called preemptive war was "necessary" which is why the war was not backed by the U.N. Of course we can conveniently refer to the U.N. when it serves our purpose and reject it whenever it doesn't, can't we. Further, since 1441 clearly states that it recognizes the sovereignty of Iraq, you can't POSSIBLY read it as authorizing full-on war for regime change. But you strike me as a bright guy, so if you don't understand this you're either not as bright as I thought or you're being purposefully obtuse.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 19:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Funny, I don't see anything in 1441 that directly authorizes war. In fact it directly reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 17:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
To which resolution are you referring?
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No. Just because the U.N. resolves something does not mean that it is enforceable by total war and removal of a regime. That is not how the U.N., or indeed any form of law works. By your argument, maybe the Palestinians should be allowed to destroy Israel because it has violated U.N. resolutions.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 16:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think it'd be more relevant to point out that we've killed way more civillians in Iraq alone as a result of *collateral damage* than were killed in the entire world by terrorists during that period.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 15:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
For the record, Brian em did NOT cite the death toll in the battle of Gettysburg, he cited the casualty level. The death toll was something more like 7000 - 8000 total combining BOTH SIDES - admittedly still more than the entire Iraq war for AMERICAN SOLDIER deaths, but nowhere near as many TOTAL DEATHS in the Iraq war if you actually accept the idea that Iraqis are humans.
That aside, bringing this up at all is specious. If 10 people die in a massive car pile-up, do you respond with "Hey, that's nothing! Look how many people die of cancer every year!" Your justifications for the war are laughable - you can't use a U.N. resolution as a reason for doing something that goes even more blatantly against the U.N. and the basic principles of international law. Of course the old Iraqi regime was not so great, but there's such a thing as proportionality, and we've actually made the situation there worse. Now I will concede that I'm honestly not sure at this point whether Iraq would ultimately be better off if we leave or stay. Either way we've made a fine mess of that country and it's nothing to crow about.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 15:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Iraq - The $3 Trillion War
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Your "point" is a non-point. The Iraq war has almost nothing in common with the American Civil War. Although military casualties (which by the way is NOT the same thing as deaths) are far lower in Iraq, the Civil War at least arguably had a real purpose and did not involve us making an unprovoked attack on a sovereign foreign nation.
Also you're conveniently ignoring Iraqi casualties, particularly civillians (isn't Iraq the country we were supposed to be "liberating"?) and the MASSIVE refugee crisis we have created in the region. All that to supposedly root out some little wannabe al qaeda jr. non-entity that didn't even exist before we went there. The medical stats are irrelevant - those are regrettable but they're the product of modern medicine, which obviously saves/prolongs far more lives than it ends.
Posted on: 2008/3/7 4:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Renting at New Jersey - safe + closer to the trains - $1500 budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Hi,
When you say "safety" is your primary concern, how high are your standards? Have you lived in urban areas before? Does a place need to have almost no crime in order to be considered "safe"? Anywhere in Jersey City is going to have some crime - at very least car break-ins and perhaps an occasional mugging. If you're willing to commute up to an hour one way you might be better off looking at one of the suburbs along NJ Transit. I found Cranford to be pretty nice when I worked there, for example. Don't get me wrong - I love Jersey City. I just don't think it's the safest place you can find.
Posted on: 2008/2/18 16:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Bergen Lafayette: Addict shot in daylight drug deal, he's expected to recover
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Once someone gets addicted to drugs, he is no longer a human being! High five!
Posted on: 2008/2/16 7:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark couple left a loaded handgun in open view in their SUV at BJs while shopped at Newport Ce
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
um, I agree good job by the tow truck company, but no matter how you slice it, patrolling a private parking lot for non-shoppers is not a public QOL issue
Posted on: 2008/2/7 23:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Poor service from USPS package carrier in Van Vorst Park
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I've had similar problems recently with items winding up returned without getting a proper notice. The other day the guy rang the doorbell and my wife ran down immediately. He was already going back to his truck and didn't turn around when she repeatedly shouted to him.
Posted on: 2008/2/7 0:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Greenville: Building looted of boilers, pipes worth $500,000
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Bubbles and Johnny finally pulled off their big scheme!
Posted on: 2008/2/5 14:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Violent Home Invasion - Coles & Monmouth
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This is going to seem like a pedantic and beside-the-point argument, but it's very unlikely that this was the work of crack addicts or dope fiends. Those kind of hard drugs tend to weaken and emaciate people and predispose them toward the lowest-risk sneak thieving kinds of crimes. I used to live next door to a crack house and the only thing the crackheads were ever able to do was distract us once and make off with a bike left on the front porch. We were a bunch of average-sized guys and they were afraid of us. It's hard to imagine them kicking down any doors.
Posted on: 2008/2/4 20:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Violent Home Invasion - Coles & Monmouth
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It's funny how everyone struggles to rationalize why this can't happen to them: "She must have been targeted" "She should have called 9-11 right away" "She should have had a gun" "Her door probably wasn't strong enough" "She should have had a more ragged looking dog so she didn't look like she had money" etc.
I guess it's just human nature to want to forget that bad stuff can happen to anyone. Sorry to hear about this, not to mention a bit worried as I live in the area. At the same time, we do not live "in a war zone" and I wouldn't get hysterical. Just be careful, take precautions etc.
Posted on: 2008/2/3 15:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Good move. I'm guessing if they had caved on this, it would effectively force them to give every future development the same deal.
Posted on: 2008/2/2 22:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
And just to belabor the point a little more, what is so terrible about one parking lot sitting for a while in a neighborhood where so many new buildings are already going up? And why should the rest of Jersey City pay so that that corner can have a "more vibrant streetscape," especially when you consider the potential future losses of revenue from the precedent this would set if it were accepted? I happened to peak at your blog, and you seem to be fairly free-market oriented in your take on the housing crisis. I find it strange that you feel differently about this.
Posted on: 2008/1/29 0:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Developer: Project 'stalled' by denial of abatement change
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Ian, I'm having a hard time seeing whether there's any bigger picture to your argument.
The bigger picture would include the fact that there's already been a bona fide explosion of residential development in the area - both condos and rentals. If there's really such an urgent need for even more, prices should be high enough that the developer can justify building with the current abatement offer. If not, then we're gambling away tax revenues on something that might not succeed anyway.
Posted on: 2008/1/28 22:58
|
|||
|
||||