[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]
Probably woulda been a good thing.
Ok look - here is the situation, you've got two countries that *have to* get along. If you get right to it, Israel should never have been formed [/QUOTE]
So in other words, the Jews shouldn't have a place they can go to to be safe, eh? If they start getting killed off again, I guess they should just hope there's enough attics for everyone.... [/QUOTE]
shut your cake hole you nazi!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Alex Solan wrote: [/QUOTENAME]http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/1oct02/llama.jpg[/QUOTE]
Fuzzy Llama
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
Fuzzy Llama
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: [/QUOTENAME]If you support the UN in one endeavor - telling us to stay out of Iraq - why don't you support the UN when they did something decent for suffering people? There are many Arab Israelis living in Israel, and THEY'RE getting along with the Israelis fine, it's just the terrorist lunatics like Arafat (before he died obviously) that want to take over Israel. [/QUOTE]
So you think the terrorists are only one one side?
I guess that you must be one of those who buy the whole Israeli "retaliation" issue, as some sort of "justice", huh? I'm sorry but targeting villages, destroying homes, and killing women and children while on the pursue for terrorists IS TERRORISM TOO.
Sadly there's too many people like you who are just completely biased when it comes to the issue of fighting terrorism.
Steven Spielberg recently got blasted by the Israeli community for criticizing the methods of taking "blood for blood" on the movie 'Munich'. Spielberg never once took the side of the Palestinians during the film, and tried to make his film as non-partisan and unbiased as possible. The film does NOT intend to express that the use of force is always wrong, but rather criticize how the methods for finding "justice" are often driven by hatred, revenge, and anger.[/QUOTE]
Ah yeah, good post.
[QUOTE]What war did JFK start? Are you talking about Vietnam? That was Johnson, dude. Check your history books.
JFK did something that more politicians should do more often. He avoided a war with the Soviet Union by having a diplomatic agreement with the Russians. Having decided to bomb the Russians after the Cuban missile crisis, perhaps none of us would be here.
Sadly those right wing nuts at the CIA thought that JFK was being too soft on communism, and that's why it was probably them who decided to get him killed.
Aside from that JFK was the President who despite strong opossition from the south, decided to pass the Bill of Civil Rights and put a complete end to racial segregation by declaring it absolutely unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
In conclusion, with the evidence presented, JFK was clearly the worst president ever.
So you think the terrorists are only one one side?
I guess that you must be one of those who buy the whole Israeli "retaliation" issue, as some sort of "justice", huh? I'm sorry but targeting villages, destroying homes, and killing women and children while on the pursue for terrorists IS TERRORISM TOO.
Sadly there's too many people like you who are just completely biased when it comes to the issue of fighting terrorism.
Steven Spielberg recently got blasted by the Israeli community for criticizing the methods of taking "blood for blood" on the movie 'Munich'. Spielberg never once took the side of the Palestinians during the film, and tried to make his film as non-partisan and unbiased as possible. The film does NOT intend to express that the use of force is always wrong, but rather criticize how the methods for finding "justice" are often driven by hatred, revenge, and anger.[/QUOTE]
Ah yeah, good post.
[QUOTE]What war did JFK start? Are you talking about Vietnam? That was Johnson, dude. Check your history books.
JFK did something that more politicians should do more often. He avoided a war with the Soviet Union by having a diplomatic agreement with the Russians. Having decided to bomb the Russians after the Cuban missile crisis, perhaps none of us would be here.
Sadly those right wing nuts at the CIA thought that JFK was being too soft on communism, and that's why it was probably them who decided to get him killed.
Aside from that JFK was the President who despite strong opossition from the south, decided to pass the Bill of Civil Rights and put a complete end to racial segregation by declaring it absolutely unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
In conclusion, with the evidence presented, JFK was clearly the worst president ever.
The Civil Rights Bill passed in 1964, after JFK's death.
LBJ, the southerner, deserves the credit for that one.
LBJ, the southerner, deserves the credit for that one.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The Civil Rights Bill passed in 1964, after JFK's death.
LBJ, the southerner, deserves the credit for that one.[/QUOTE]
My bad about that one.
Although I think JFK deserves more credit for passing the Bill of Civil Rights. He was the one who talked to MLK several times, and pushed congress to pass the bill.
LBJ, the southerner, deserves the credit for that one.[/QUOTE]
My bad about that one.
Although I think JFK deserves more credit for passing the Bill of Civil Rights. He was the one who talked to MLK several times, and pushed congress to pass the bill.
LBJ used the memory of JFK to garner support for the bill's passage, which is one reason why it's linked to the Kennedy so much in the public memory. Historically speaking, JFK's importance has been a bit overblown, much like the belief that he would have kept us out of Vietnam. We really don't know what would have happened if he lived, though he was certainly more actively invovled than Eisenhower was.
On a side note, LBJ said he lost the South to the Republicans when he signed the bill.
On a side note, LBJ said he lost the South to the Republicans when he signed the bill.