unicorn

I've been as surprised by the popularity of BN as of DT. I mean, even if one were to agree with his policies, how can one support someone so completely lacking of any moral fiber or character? One so completely bereft of any sense of honesty or trustworthiness?

Sociopaths usually get their due eventually. Still waiting to see Trump sent to the jailhouse.

I hope he wins the primary. It will be the Democrats' best chance. If anyone can lose against Trump, it's Biden.

I agree. As with other religions, Buddhism is rooted in faith and a belief system, rather than on facts and science. While not monotheistic, it involves prayer, a religious caste, devotion, and so on. Although quite different from the Abrahamic religions, it certainly requires buying into a certain mindset. And, as with other religions, there have been wars and murders in its name (look at Myanmar).

https://attachments.f95zone.to/2022/07/1950709_Thebestkindofweaponistheoneyouonly_113539a9b1183c52c9599bf8a66e7746.gif

I guess you thought I wouldn't click on the link and actually read the article. For the several people who "liked" your post, and therefore didn't bother to click on the link, I will tell them that that article has ZERO to do with the current situation, and in particular NOTHING to do with taking down the sites with which Hamas is using to volley missiles into Israeli civilian areas. All it does is suggest that negotiating with hostage-takers is a good idea. Nice try, but again devoid of integrity. Obviously, even if one were to buy into the idea that negotiating with hostage-takers is a good idea, that argument does nothing to address the immediate issue of stopping the Hamas missile launches. To address your aside, which has nothing to do with the situation we were supposed to be discussing, I personally think it's a bad idea to negotiate with hostage-takers, as this only encourages further hostage-taking. Nothing wrong with pretending to negotiate while planning a rescue mission, but I would oppose any concessions. Otherwise, one will end up in an endless cycle in which one gives up more and more as more and more hostages get taken. That being said, I strongly oppose Israel's recent policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians, especially the settlements in the West Bank, which are simply obvious provocations. One could also argue that placing a kibbutz, such as Nahal Oz, right on the border wall with Gaza, might also be construed as a provocation and/or asking for trouble--not that this would excuse slaughtering unarmed civilians or hostage-taking. I very much understand the Palestinians' frustrations, especially at the arrogant and offensive policies of Netenyahu. However, the insurgents would have had my sympathy had they limited to targeting IDF troops, and lost my sympathy by shooting and kidnapping women, children, and the elderly.

You may have missed the part in which he was being entirely sarcastic.

There you go again with the false narrative that the Israelis are bombing Palestinians, or, even more ridiculously, that the goal of the Israelis is to "shock and awe." As my father wisely used to say, there's only been one war which has ever been won with bombing, and that's WWII--and we certainly never want to go there again. Only a fool would believe that a war can be won by bombing. Anyone who looks at the facts rationally and impartially understands that the goal of the Israeli bombing is plain and simple: to take out the Hamas missile sites which are volleying the rockets Hamas sends towards Israeli civilian areas. What you're saying is the complete opposite of the truth. It's Hamas which is (unsuccessfully, of course) trying to "shock and awe" the Israelis by targeting civilian areas. This sharply contrasts Israeli bombing, which targets only military objectives. If Hamas puts these military objectives in areas heavily populated by civilians, that's entirely on them.

Since you can't even name one alternative (as I already knew couldn't), after falsely stating you knew several, perhaps you'd do better to keep quiet rather than extol your lack of integrity. And, of course, you know full-well that the Israelis don't bomb civilians. They bomb missile launching sites. Hamas has zero need to put them in areas heavily populated by civilians, of course. The civilian deaths are 100% Hamas' responsibility. Hamas kills Palestinian civilians for propaganda purposes. Bear in mind, that I very much support Palestinian civilians, and have donated thousands of dollars over the years to help them. It pains me to see Hamas slaughter them.

Now there's a preposterous "alternative." Lots wrong with it. First of all, planning and arranging for a ground invasion takes a lot of time. It's absurd to imagine that Israel would just let Hamas continue to simply spew missiles towards their territory day after day, while planning a dangerous invasion (oh, and of course ignoring that if the missile sites are left intact, Hamas could easily target the potentially invading forces). Secondly, such an invasion would be extremely dangerous as Hamas is entrenched in cities they know well, and they have tons of tunnels, booby-traps, and so on. Thirdly, and most obviously, who in his right mind would imagine that a ground invasion in and of itself wouldn't result in ample civilian deaths? And, even if Hamas were to somehow wait around and just leave those missiles lying there, the missiles are still in highly populated areas. Missiles are, to put it mildly, explosive. Or do you imagine that Hamas is going to simply hand over the missiles to the ground troops, saying "Here you go!"?????

OK. So why can't you name ONE? I would be even more impressed if you can enumerate the SEVERAL you claimed to have immediately thought of.

Hamas is 100% responsible. Do you really expect Israel to simply allow Hamas to continue firing rockets at their civilians indefinitely? No you do not. There is NO alternative. Therefore, you know as well as I do that Hamas is 100% responsible. They absolutely know the consequences of firing missiles from their population centers. It's preposterous to suggest they don't.

Shameful deflection. I do not condone the action of Israeli forces in the West Bank, which has essentially nothing to do with the mass murder of innocent civilians on both sides by the Hamas in Gaza. Had Hamas merely killed Israeli soldiers, I would have no objection. It's the intentional targeting of civilians I abhor.

You seem to be ignoring that the massacre of Palestinian civilians is entirely the responsibility of Hamas. They place the missiles they use to bomb Israel in the midst of Palestinian civilians. Do you really expect Israel to sit there and do nothing while Hamas volleys missiles into their territory? Of course not. As is obvious to everyone, including all Arabs, Israel has zero option but to target the locations Hamas uses to send missiles. Then, of course, Hamas wails and cries "Look what the Israelis did!", when, in fact, of course, it is they who are entirely responsible.

The reason for this is that Hamas is intentionally launching missiles from densely-populated areas, knowing full-well that the Israelis have no choice but to target the areas of the missile launches. Essentially all of the civilian deaths on the Palestinian side are due to Hamas. Hamas is responsible for both Israeli and Palestinian civilian deaths. And when Palestinians die, they point their fingers at the Israelis. Hamas kills Palestinians for their own benefit.

I certainly do not condone the actions of the Israeli government vis-a-vis the Palestinian people. I donate generously to ANERA, a charitable group which helps Palestinians. I strongly condemn the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That being said, at least Israelis don't intentionally plow down innocent civilians, shoot women and children in the back while they're running away, nor take hostages. Hamas cares only about its narrow view of the world and sacrifices its own citizens towards that goal. I'd have had a lot more sympathy had they only killed Israeli soldiers. And that being said, I feel it was foolhardy to hold a music festival so close to the Gaza Strip, and on the 50th Anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, no less. To me, that came off as an insensitive provocation. As disgusting as Hamas's actions have been, the Israelis might also consider that Palestinians (other than Hamas) are humans, too.

Oooh. Name-calling. You must be right. The point, Einstein, is that it's the job of all defense lawyers to discredit accusers, whether the accusers are right or wrong (sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not). It's pretty ridiculous to disparage someone for doing his job. I don't know specifically about KS. I have seen evidence that in at least some cases, the activity was quite consensual and even bragged about later. He may, in general, be a sleazebag, but just being accused doesn't make one a sleazebag. So far those who've looked actually looked at the evidence (neither of us) have not been convinced.

Thank you, professor. To think that, all of this time I thought that to goal of a defense lawyer was to praise and support the accuser.

I feel a song coming on...

Yes, you did. You said Biden shut down the pipelines. One can't shut something down that isn't open to begin with. You did NOT say he shut down the construction. Even if it had been possible for those to be running by now, the impact, as you well know, would have been negligible.

That's preposterous, and I'm sure you know it. Obviously, the pipelines weren't operating under Trump, either, and even if they were (which they weren't), the effect would be tiny--certainly not 25%.

They were polling people on the news on what they had against Biden "He's responsible for the gas prices," the Trump supporter said. The one thing Biden has virtually no control over. The most he can do is encourage alternative energy sources, which is what he's done.

I usually book through hotel chain's individual sites. Most brands include mid-range properties, including Hilton (HHonors), the InterContinental Group (including Holiday Inn hotels), Marriott/Bonvoy (includes Fairfield Inn and Four Points, which are usually 3*), and Best Western. I only use the Hotels.com and similar sites for small towns which may not have any chain hotels. With the chains, one gets the lowest fees at their sites, and also accumulate points, which one can use at 5* places when one wants snazzier digs.