In short-The small population of Arab natives along with a native Jewish minority welcomed a relatively small number of European Jewish refugees in the (edit:20’s and early) 30’s while under British rule (but with a date set for their independence by the League of Nations, a date that came and went without ever establishing a Palestinian state). Then in the 40’s (even by mid 30’s)the Jewish minority, America, and England ignored their pleas to minimize immigration, ignored immigration laws, and invited a major invasion, so many European Jews came illegally that the Arab natives quickly became the minority, then had all rights stripped by the now well armed invaders that now claimed their land and property…invaders that kept coming by the millions. How is that not an invasion of squatters?
It’s a complete abandonment of the Palestinian Mandate the Brits ruled under, which was allowed internationally after ww1 for the sole purpose of getting Palestine in a position to rule themselves, something the Brits failed to even try then actively sabotaged by supporting the mass immigration of millions of European Jews, and was the biggest possible “fuck off and die” to the Palestinian people that had cooperated fully with the international plan for their independent future that was unceremoniously stripped from them and handed to Israel.
From that point, details don’t matter so much. Invading occupying forces don’t get to whine because the natives won’t just go away and die….at least I’m not listening when they do. Want to stop being attacked, stop murdering innocents and taking land.

I wonder why you think Israel is not so dominant seeing as they already proved repeatedly their military dominance even when their neighbors band together. Not one of the countries you mentioned has an advanced military, they are last gen at best, really two or more generations behind, and have third world resources not trillions to spend. Iraq proved that advanced weapons beat numbers hands down every single time. Unless Iran gets a nuke capable of getting through the highest levels of missile defense on the planet, their “neighbors” (Palestines allies) pose no actual threat to Israel and a pretty minor threat to the expansionist settlers invading Palestine.

I never ignored any rolls of the neighbors supporting, arming, and instigating unrest…but those roles are minuscule compared to the actions of Israel. Nothing recruits for Hamas like the Israeli army. Nothing creates more terrorists than murderous settlers. No other factor has 1% the effect that Israel’s own actions do in creating enemies.
Murderous expansionist settlers should be eliminated with prejudice immediately. They are the biggest factor driving Israel’s murderous regime to murder more innocents.
If Israel acted civilly instead of treating the natives like the Nazis treated them, its neighbors couldn’t easily convince angry teens to pick up guns and shoot Israelis. Give the Palestinians something to lose, or they’ll have nothing to lose, a chip on their shoulder, and a clear enemy responsible for their plight. This is the official recipe for a terrorist.

Blaming the neighbors is like claiming N Carolina is RESPONSIBLE for all shootings in N Y because some guns used are procured there…nonsense. They are complicit, but minimally so. It’s the shooters motives you need to look at, not the store they use. Why are they so ready to sacrifice their lives to just shoot or throw rocks AT Israel (99/100 times hitting nothing)? Because they have nothing to lose but life in an ever shrinking ghetto ruled over by a foreign racist regime that wants them just gone and is more than happy to starve children to death and bomb refugee camps to accomplish that goal.
The neighbors didn’t invade, expel, ghettoize, and gleefully murder the Palestinian people, that was Israel.

Blaming the victims is not an argument that will win many over…and no question the Palestinian people are the TRUE and only victims.

Where are the European countries now…the same ones that facilitated the Jewish invasion should be obligated to enforce the borders, and/or take the Palestinian refugees and free them from the ghetto/prison Israel keeps them in….but none are.

Side note- I keep hearing people who support Palestinians described as anti semitic. It bears noting that European Jews, the VAST majority of Israelis, are NOT Semitic…but all Palestinians are. Being pro-Israel is actually and factually anti-Semitic.

FYI just saw you delusion post. didn't read it -- not worth my time.

Got nothing for you because your aren't worth nothing.

More pure projection.
He says liberal news media is all lies….from Faux News itself. No surprise from Bongino, he’s a treasonous liar who’s willing to say anything no matter how brain dead or false to ingratiate himself with the Trump cult for cash. I’ve pointed out before what a dishonest fabricator he is.

Still trying the fake Hunter Biden laptop story!?! You fuckwits. It’s ignored because you morons had to tamper with the data before turning it over to anyone…and because Giuliani reportedly handed it over to a Russian agent at one point. Also, he was closely connected to Andriy Derkach who was a Russian agent in Ukraine making Burisma accusations and claiming to have a second Hunter Biden laptop.
By the time law enforcement was able to look at it, there was no evidence left, only data that had been altered by criminal liars with a clear agenda to smear Joe by any means. That puts it all in question, and considering the source and the private citizen target it’s not worth anyone’s time. Deluxe nothing burger royal with cheese.

Nice attempt to distract from Faux News being 100% complicit in the failed coup, knowingly pushing the fake narratives that there was massive democratic fraud and the election stolen when now we have internal communications where they ALL admit there was absolutely no Democratic fraud at all and Trump definitely lost big time, and his spokespeople are crazy liars that make up almost everything they say, but they’re going to go along with the lies because if they do, Trump will reward them and if they don’t, he will destroy them (Tucker said this).

How many unflattering or criminal stories about Trump did the righty media fail to air? How often do they tell you how , with Trump’s approval, Jared sold classified information to the Saudis in exchange for a personal investment of $2 BILLION dollars in his new investment company that did not meet basic investment requirements for the crown prince’s funds but he gave them to Jared anyway….quid quo pro?
How often do they report on how many times they repeated known lies to further the failed coup and its defense?
Or the officials who quit because they knew the big lie was criminal?
How many stories on how the CDC said clearly that Trump’s haphazard disjointed contradictory covid message and lack of plan is to blame for over 1/2 of all infections, disabilities, and deaths? Said so when Trump was president.

Sorry, friendo. This whining look in the mirror is nonsense coming from a network dedicated to lies that still makes its viewers less informed every time they watch. Verifiably. It is still the best righty “news”, and it is verifiably wrong 95% of the time or more.

*debunked

It's not really about the ramp. He's an old rickety man, naturally he has trouble.

The problem is that he forces doctors to lie about his health, then things like this make the truth obvious.

Then he compounds lies upon lies. His skin is so thin he just can't let it go, he rambles for 10 minutes about how unfair everything is.

Remember, this is a guy born to incredible wealth, never worked a day in his life, thinks that knowing a fucking rhinoceros from a drawing is an impressive achievement, is cruel and demeaning whenever he has a chance, treats the world, and women's genitalia as his own personal playground with few repercussions, no matter how egregiously he's broken the law, rips off investors, contractors, the very country he now pretends to serve, lost billions of dollars in personal wealth while bragging about how good he is with money, had to turn to Russian lenders because US and European banks wouldn't touch him anymore, yet somehow fell ass backwards into the presidency of the US. Now he uses that position to line his own pockets, without the slightest care for those he hurts or kills in the process.

And yet... he finds life doesn't treat him fairly. He whines and complains.

You know the only time he's seemed truly sad and upset while President?

Was it when 100,000 Americans died while he made things worse?

No.

Was it when police started ramming innocent protestors and media with their vehicles, tear gassing, beating, and maiming with rubber bullets?

No.

What about when mass shootings happened on his watch, or school shootings, like Obama?

No.

He got truly publicly upset for the first time in his presidency when a disappointing number of adoring fans came to a rally.

He is so pathetic and useless, so self-serving and evil that pain, death, suffering on a scale that really hasn't been seen in the US in a very long time means nothing.

The only thing that matters is him.

Now, what were you saying about Biden?

Do you still want to do that side-by-side comparison?

Do you really think this is about a ramp?

Whatever, Blizz gets so much hate non-stop. I just want to say that I own pretty much every game and expansion they've ever put out. But, to relegate it to their newest crop of games : their F2P games both rock, I've spent probably $200 on Hearthstone over time, and nothing on Heroes of the Storm and I play HoS all the time.

All of their expansions are always worth the loot. And the games themselves and their longevity is worth the money as well. They continue to support their games well after launch marketing has died down.

I did see this, but it wasn't consistent.

When I clicked a few of the images I got mouseover for each of them, but then clicking a second, third, fourth or fifth time did nothing except flash a square around the image... no page load happened.

It wasn't consistent though, at that exact moment I got a message and left Safari to reply to it, and when I went back everything worked. I tried a page refresh, but that didn't bring back the bad behaviour either.

I'm running iOS version 8.4 (12H143), and it's very likely to be version dependent.

Now I'm curious how @lurgee will go!

this was awesome on so many levels.
twenty years ago i came to same conclusion in regards to diet and exercise after being failed epically by my doctors.

of course i didnt understand the particulars,i just knew it worked.
i still struggle from time to time but nothing like it was those many years ago.

i wish this was longer,it seemed this man had so much more to say.

I have no idea why.
But this video shows ZERO votes.
And it will NOT let me vote for it - The vote up buttons are missing.
I've tried reloading the page several times - but nothing...

Edit, now it says ONE vote - but still shows no one as having voted for it. It still won't let me vote.

Old School is perhaps the best american comedy in a decade. That said, I absolutely agree. Comedy here is very one-dimensional. It's jokes, nothing else. Usually very base ones that everyone will get with a spattering of 'gut-laughs'. I agree one of the biggest reasons as Drachan commented on is just how regimented and formulaic our entertainment is in this country.

This also exemplifies why I am so very torn with Edgar Wright leaving Ant Man and potentially Marvel. He's one of the best directors around and so very inventive. I adored World's End, though my favorite of the 'trilogy' will always be Hot Fuzz.

On the flip side, as a fan of the comic Scott Pilgrim was a terrible movie. He clearly took a lot of creative license with the beloved graphic novel while at the same time totally putting off the audience while at the same time doing nothing to bring in people who have never heard of it previously, which is why it bombed so very hard.

So he left Ant Man, easily one of my top 5 favorite Marvel characters, because of creative differences. I suspect he wanted to do something very different then the established material and Marvel was against that because they want to link him to their other movies (DUH!). So while I think the movie could potentially have been fantastic under his direction, it could just as easily have been marvels biggest bomb since Hulk.

All the time that you've spent telling me to read the Wikipedia article and find the hidden relevance of anomie to Chomsky and the "real" definition of anarchy (that is not the absence of the state) you could have used to simply make your point (if you even had one at all). That, to me, is the definition of evasive.

You don't know what you're talking about, or else you wouldn't be so evasive -- and yet spend so much time writing nothing, name-calling, and trolling.

Six sentences and not one addressing my questions. Clearly 'wasting time' is not a real concern of yours.

OK works today - and I did nothing to fix it.
Yesterday, I tried it 4-5 times and nothing...

Roaming black-outs?

@Lawdeedaw

My personal argument against the "traditional marriage" argument follows:

I'm going to try my best to make a "good argument" about this.

I think we agree on this:

** The "traditional marriage" argument goes: Marriage has traditionally been a union between one man and one woman. Therefore, by society's definition, gay marriage is not marriage at all, and therefore never can be. **

Within the church, for the last two thousand years or so, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman. As the West was pretty much universally converted to Christianity or was founded by Christians (in the case of North America), this is just about all we in the West have done and seen for a long, long time. If that's what we mean by "traditional", then that's correct. I'm guessing you'll still be with me up to this point.

This "traditional marriage" was our culture's habit for such a long time, that nothing else seemed natural or even fathomable. Marriage began to be defined as a secular legal construct (as it was before religion). People started getting married outside the church, which probably met with resistance, but anyway was socially accepted. Then someone raised the possibility of two same-sex people getting married outside the church. It seemed ridiculous because that's not the way it had ever done been before.

That, to me, is the full extent of the "traditional marriage" argument: it's our tradition, the way we have done it for as long as we can remember.

But, so what? We have changed plenty of other traditional societal definitions in the past: we redefined black people as full persons and equal under law (as they were before we enslaved them); we redefined "leader of the nation" as whoever the population chooses. So it doesn't follow that having a traditional definition of something means that we cannot decide to change it if our society wants it.

If you're in favour of denying gays the right to marry for reasons other than "that's the way it's been as long as I can remember", then fine, but this particular "traditional marriage" argument does not have merit.

Sorry, http://videosift.com/video/Time-is-Nothing-Around-The-World

Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.

By and large the people on the sift attack me and not my arguments, as you're doing here. You and the rest have your own preconceived notions about reality which you zealousy defend. And to imply I am ignorant or logically inconsistant is bull. I used to be like you and think like you; I came from the secular world and I reject it as delusional.

The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? )

Sometimes you make it hard to love you but I still do. Yes, everyone who has had a spiritual experience is crazy, which is a good slice of the world population. Have you ever thought that maybe you're the one who isn't right? I mean you have to believe that you know better than over 90 percent of the planet and most everyone who has ever lived. No wonder your ego is out of control.

But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

Are you kidding me? Listen, read my post, and then try to imagine I am a lot more intelligent than you give me credit for, and then read it again. I know exactly what Qualia was doing, and I showed it up for what it is, a bunch of opinion and fallacy masquarading as logical argumentation. He utterly failed to refute Craig, and it amazes me that anyone could fail to see how weak his arguments are. If you think I am wrong then show me why.

I am not out to prove Gods existence, I am here to tell people they can prove it to themselves. If you prayed to Jesus in humility and asked Him for the truth, He would show it to you. You don't need to trust my experience, you can find out for yourself.

>> ^messenger:
Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.
The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"> )
But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.

Miss you? I like you and find you interesting as a person, but I find discussions with you about God's nature mostly unfulfilling. The reason is that you start with a conclusion (the Biblical God exists; the New Testament is literally true), and mishear, ignore and twist every other input you receive to match your conclusion.

The evidence you have given is a psychotic break you once had. Any other evidence is meaningless to you, so there's no sense even talking to you about these issues. By God's lack of definition, he cannot be proven not to exist. But even if he were clearly defined, and it were possible to categorically prove that he doesn't exist, you wouldn't accept this information because you have suffered a mental injury that prevents you from doing so. (Do you still love me? )

But this is the internet, and what I'm doing at the moment leaves significant gaps of time with nothing to attend to, so here we go, again: As before, I think you're filtering out and twisting what you don't want to hear. Qualia isn't saying God doesn't exist (and he never does, except where someone's definition of God presents a logical impossibility). Rather, he's dismantling Craig's ontological argument by showing that the premises on which it rests are false, and therefore the conclusion is not necessarily true. He's not arguing that it's false, just that Craig's premises are. He's not trying to prove anything, only Craig is. Qualia is showing that Craig's proof in this instance is invalid. And in that, he does a good job, and only proves that Craig's argument doesn't hold because he cannot prove the premises.