The United States under President George W. Bush was prepared to take in 100,000 Palestinian refugees as part of a Middle East peace deal, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Sunday.
“The United States was ready to take in 100,000 refugees as citizens of the United States,” Olmert said, in what may be his most revealing comments to date about negotiations with the U.S. and the Palestinians when he was prime minister.
Olmert, who led Israel from 2006 to 2009, spoke weeks after direct talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians resumed in Washington…
Olmert said Sunday that he is hopeful about the new round of talks.
“We have a peace proposal, and I believe that it may bring about a peace accord between us and the Palestinians in a short time,” he said.
“The mere fact that the government of Israel agreed to take direct talks even when it causes pain to the government this means that it is courageous,” he said. “Maybe it’s the beginning of an understanding that there is no other choice.”
Uh – the part about opening our hearts and hearth to 100,000 Palestinian refugees? How many members of Congress can you think of who would vote for that?
Go ahead. Use the fingers on both hands.
Thanks to the UN the Palestinians are the only group that can transfer refugee status to their descendants – FOREVER. The so-called “refugee camps” they live in are just regular towns, sorry no tent cities for these “refugees”. Most of these “refugees” live in Jordan and Lebanon. I’m sure they would just love to come to America and wear USA flag T-Shirts.
WHAT?! #35 comments into this crap and the great Dallas has nothing to spew about Bush? Wow.
Eed-tard sounds like Michael Savage? That’s what I call progress (not Progressive thankfully). Hey genius, the various idiot bureaucrats have promised to let in all sorts of immigrants. Palestian, Mung, Ethiopian, you name it.
Maybe one day ‘tard you can leave the UK and experience the greatness that is USA and those SCARY immigrants will live next door to YOU.
#30
aaah the dumbass liberal argument yet again. Try to make everything about slavery. Good job at painting yourself a fool
Calling me a fool doesn’t argue the point, jman. You made the ridiculous claim that the nation was perfect when it was created and there is no need for any change. I proved your thesis wrong, unless you’d like to argue in favor of slavery and against womens’ suffrage.
Just when should we turn back the clock? 1800? 1950? 2000? Please tell me when we solved all the problems of government and society, for all time?
again, since you are such a dumbass that you don’t get it….I NEVER said anything about NOT ending slavery or giving women the right to vote. You’re making an argument where none exists.
>> Alfred Persson said, on September 20th, 2010 at 10:26 am
>> We have open borders, Pres. Obama is suing Arizona to keep its borders open.
>> And you all applaud.
This is such a load of crap, Alfred.
This law suit has nothing to do with “open borders.”
The lawsuit is about states usurping federal law.
This is a constitutional issue. My word, Alfred, you should take a minute and do some research before you write dumb stuff on the internet.
But, I’ll do your homework for you:
Here is a link http://tinyurl.com/24dssrm
I’ll be surprised if you click on, so here is the key point:
>> The heart of the legal arguments focus on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, a theory that says federal laws override state laws. The lawsuit says there are comprehensive federal laws on the books that cover illegal immigration — and that those statutes take precedent.
Conservatives keep claiming they love the constitution — so they should be applauding “Obama’s” lawsuit.
Bobbo, jman- Change *for its own sake* is foolish, inefficient, and as likely to go wrong as most mutations in biology do…
Change to “right a wrong” or “improve effeciency,” these are things where a case can be made. (there are probably others as well, but these blanket a big gamut)
TCC3 What cracks me up about about comments like this are they illuminate so clearly how poorly we executed the heart and soul of our own constitution. No slavery of any kind can be justified under the original language. “All men are created equal…” If we take sex out of the quote (and “he” is quite often Neutral in gender) we also account for universal suffrage. (Which I am no longer 100% confident in but that is another post )
Like Islamic extremists, abortion clinic bombers and bigots in any (recognized)formal religion, we as silly hoomans can’t even seem to execute what we claim is the most important thing we believe, whether that would be Christianity, Islam, “constitutionalism”, the Golden Rule, or the Oath of Office.
my $0.02
Wow, jman is quick with the name calling when he cant debate the point.
So answer my question. When exactly did we solve all the problems of government and society, so that no more change was ever needed again?
>> # 29 Alfred Persson said, on September 20th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
>> I agree and if it helped make peace, it would be worth it.
>> We’d get great Americans who contribute to the economy…
Of course you think it’s great. Your leader did it.
Now, I want Obama to host these 100,000 Muslims in rally in D.C. just to hear the popping of conservative heads all over America.
Ellis Island immigration center would be a perfect processing area. Is that too close to ground zero for a GOP and Teabagger welcoming?
#43–2cents on a 5 cent ride: of course “being for change” DOES NOT mean “change for change sake” which is why you have to add more words to what was said. Why not use your intellect to find common ground rather than look silly, dishonest, and manipulative?
liberal = being honest enough to recognize changes that are needed to make the current system better.
Conservative = being dishonest in representing that there is no problem needing any change at all or a change that would make matters only worse.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
jman==indeed you do see the trap of you idiot argument but you won’t change your position, you only argue the trap isn’t there. And that is why your position is truly “stupid.” Like a chess game, when a move/argument is found not to work, you need to liberal up and do something different==stop lying to yourself and those around you.
Its actually quite easy: you should never argue the past–its too vague and lazy and always wrong. Instead, find what it is in the past that you are “actually” thinking of ((if you are)) and argue from that viewpoint. What was in with Raygun that you found so attractive? Like Obama – he gave a good speech but he was corrupt thru and thru: drugs for money for weapons for contras. He lied all the time, but had a nice smile. Terrible president.
xxxxxxxxxxx
Greg Allan: the argument is constitutional but the effect at issue actually does result in open borders. Proof that even Alfie is not wrong all the time. His word choice is aggressive and exaggerated, maybe thats what is putting you off? Obama is doing what every other Pres has done: enforcing the Federal prerogative decreasing State’s Rights and leaving us all unprotected against foreign invaders. And just because all former Presidents did the same thing does not releave Obama from being impeachable over failing to protect our borders.
One simply solution would be to impose another Bracero Program – wage slavery for the brown man true, but atleast it would address the problems at hand rather than do nothing.
Bobbo,
I don’t understand your logic at all. Overturning Arizona’s laws doesn’t also overturn federal law.
Nothing changes.
Here is the crazy thing — if conservatives really thought about it, they wouldn’t want states in charge of immigration either.
If states controlled who came into America this will eventually backfire on conservatives.
What happens when (not if) California is majority hispanic? Do conservatives really want California to have the right to dismantle the border checkpoints and tear down the fences?
No, the feds should be in charge of the borders and immigration, not the states.
And that’s what “Obama’s” lawsuit is all about. (Of course it’s not really Obama’s personal lawsuit but conservatives love personality politics.)
I say give them Plano, Texas
Or, all of Texas for that matter.
GregAllan==you say: “Overturning Arizona’s laws doesn’t also overturn federal law.
Nothing changes. /// Thats correct–nothing changes. We still have open borders ((hyperbole left in for emphasis)) because the Feds ARE NOT ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS, STOPPING ILLEGAL ENTRY. From 12-20 Million illegals here is my definition of having an open border and that is after Reagan made X Millions “legal” 24 (?) years ago.
So–I don’t know how you can’t make sense of what I said, which is only what is objectively true and reported on every night in the news?
Lots of branches in this rhetorical tree. I’ll just jump to what I find to be a resolution: Enforce the labor/immigration work laws already on the books. Remove the “motive” for illegal immigration: jobs. Remove the fence which really is a symbolic horror but only if jobs are not given to illegals. No broken promises like Reagan==start fining employers who are found to hire illegals. A small program actually instituted will bring compliance relatively quickly with the remainder.
Anchor babies should not be allowed. Fraud and the fruit of fraud is never to be allowed in law. Course the actual impact of anchor babies is negligible==so lets enforce that national data base for who is and who isn’t a citizen/green card holder and get on with being one nation under law?
Bobbo-
Dude, (pardon the familiar address-but I feel like I know you from reading your posts for months) The last three stanzas of post #51 are *exactly* what I think is the only way out.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a majority of our disagreements lie largely in the the emotional interpretation of the [words] language we use rather than what lies in our “heart of hearts”
That said, I know how I define “silly, dishonest and manipulative” Silly-perhaps a bit, but only by trying to keep the tone light.
Dishonest- them’s fightin’ words. Where could you possibly think I was being “dishonest” by any definition?
manipulative- Hardly, sir, what could be my possible desired outcome? Perhaps I’m pointing out that “change we can believe in” is as cheap a political promise as has ever been made, directed (largely) at the uneducated and unthinking. (and apparently lapped up like so much soma by the voting turn-out) Not that there were any palatable alternatives…
Our choice of words matters, but it the meanings we ascribe to them matter too. a classic example:
“liberal” thought:
freedom: a level playing field where everyone has exactly the same chance of success.
“conservative” thought:
freedom: a place where individual effort, skill and innate talent determine the level to which one rises
I do not necessarily agree with either definition, but this is how many internalize the words, based on their emotional baggage.
logical debate requires we have more than a shared vocabulary. It requires an ability to note that we don’t all share identical definitions to words and situations, and allow for differences in personal context before jumping right into insults and name-calling.
I’ve been hanging around the interwebs almost two weeks…I know that last is a completely unreasonable assumption. I just keep hoping to find one forum where reason and some civility are still the order of the day.
It’s just so much easier (and lazier) to call someone stupid than to inspect their argument.
You know that under the first term of Obama so far, more illegal immigrants have been deported than under the eight years of the previous administration? The people who hate immigrants should be kissing Obama’s ass and not chastising him. Look at the recent numbers on illegal immigration from Mexico. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has fallen more than six percent in the past year. They’re leaving and being deported. I live near one of the biggest hispanic areas in the USA (Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago) and the hispanics are really upset with Obama for this very reason. They expected him to give them all amnesty, but so far he hasn’t even tackled the issue and they live in fear of being deported every day. Have you been on Amtrak lately? Every ride there is a group of ICE agents walking in the aisles, checking anyone “suspicious” if they are here legally. The Arizona bill just takes things to the next step, not just checking Amtrak, but checking all the cars on the street and all the people on the sidewalks.
Party–it is a wise man who seeks the common ground. I am humbled to follow your example. Haven’t done this for awhile:
1. Dude, (pardon the familiar address-but I feel like I know you from reading your posts for months) The last three stanzas of post #51 are *exactly* what I think is the only way out. /// Dude! I know you think you know what I said, but what you don’t know is that what I meant is not what I said. Ha, Ha. Old linguist’s joke. Any single post could be an outlier, but I do hope I strike a consistent pose and even with that, I can think of 2-3 aberrations. Its all good.
2. I’ve come to the conclusion that a majority of our disagreements lie largely in the the emotional interpretation of the [words] language we use rather than what lies in our “heart of hearts” /// Emotions will always do us in. Its an American disease to think that those that disagree with us just don’t understand us, and if you are religious, you throw in the heart of hearts. People do disagree with one another “on the basics.” It is valuable in agreement or not however to define one’s terms. Something rarely done.
3–That said, I know how I define “silly, dishonest and manipulative” Silly-perhaps a bit, but only by trying to keep the tone light. /// Yea “but” the tone could be light in the other direction too.
3–Dishonest- them’s fightin’ words. Where could you possibly think I was being “dishonest” by any definition? /// Well at #43 you call me out and characterize my definition of liberal as “change for its own sake.” What else is that except dishonest or manipulative? Likewise your manipulation of the clear language of the Constitution. “No slavery of any kind can be justified under the original language.” In textual analysis the specific is given meaning over the general. All men are created equal is general. Slaves not voting and yet being worth 3/5 of a person for representation is specific. Same with wimen. Making an argument while avoiding the controlling provision that you know controls is stupid, dishonest, and manipulative. The only fight you should have is with your own overly self reverence.
4.–manipulative- Hardly, sir, what could be my possible desired outcome? /// Sense of humor explains a lot, as I will claim below. Maybe a feeling of superiority over those who don’t/can’t overcome your sophistry? I know some who will debate using faulty arguments thinking it is superior to winning by valid argument: shows the opponent to be the bigger fool? I disagree.
5. Perhaps I’m pointing out that “change we can believe in” is as cheap a political promise as has ever been made, directed (largely) at the uneducated and unthinking. /// All political lies are loathsome.
6. (and apparently lapped up like so much soma by the voting turn-out) Not that there were any palatable alternatives…/// I agree. Obama’s win was as much a rejection of Bush as it was McCain.
7. Our choice of words matters, but it the meanings we ascribe to them matter too. a classic example: /// I use the dictionary.
“liberal” thought:
freedom: a level playing field where everyone has exactly the same chance of success. /// Exactitude makes it impossible but that is a worthy goal, yes.
“conservative” thought:
freedom: a place where individual effort, skill and innate talent determine the level to which one rises /// after a fair start, or after the birth right advantages are evened up==I agree.
8–I do not necessarily agree with either definition, but this is how many internalize the words, based on their emotional baggage. /// Every definition could be a book.
9–logical debate requires we have more than a shared vocabulary. It requires an ability to note that we don’t all share identical definitions to words and situations, /// Well then the vocabulary was not shared.
10– and allow for differences in personal context before jumping right into insults and name-calling. /// But, but….but…..THAT is my personal context!
11–I’ve been hanging around the interwebs almost two weeks…I know that last is a completely unreasonable assumption. /// Two weeks? Ha, ha. You are very well spoken for an 8 year old. All work and no play?
12–I just keep hoping to find one forum where reason and some civility are still the order of the day. /// Its a knife fight. You find what you want.
13–It’s just so much easier (and lazier) to call someone stupid than to inspect their argument. /// And if their arguement is vacuous–or silly, dishonest, and manipulative?—or riddled with mindless dogma?—–or from a political tool/hack???
or like the one’s you made at #43?
No, I say the skill of the thrust must be matched by the quality of the repost. Respect before swine is as wasteful as pearls.
Bobbo- Thank you. The time you invested in your post means I’m getting through.
I really only have something to say about one of your 13 comments:
#3-I never said you or any other specific “liberal” wanted change for its own sake. I only intended to point out that “change” is so often a political rallying point that it becomes its own end, rather than a means to achieve a specific desired result. My comment was intended to be like the little yellow signs they put on tile floors even when they are dry…Perhaps superfluous, but needing to be said just in case you brought some water in on your shoes. It certainly was not “calling you out”. Besides, that would give you choice of weapons, and you have not as of yet so offended my honor that I need satisfaction 🙂
I may not agree with all of your desired end states, but that doesn’t mean I lied in an attempt to make you look foolish. I must point however, that your post #20 only states “liberal = wants change” with no qualifier…change for its own sake was your implication, not mine…
Your comment:
“Making an argument while avoiding the controlling provision that you know controls is stupid, dishonest, and manipulative. The only fight you should have is with your own overly self reverence.”
This does confuse me somewhat. “self reverence”? huh? (in hindsight my point on the constitution was not clear either) Here it is again in a different way: Provisioning slavery in general, and the 13th amendment in particular were political expediencies that unfortunately undermined the entire concept of individual human liberty that the constitution was intended to guarantee. This point was intended to be an illustration of what I was trying to say about how poorly humans execute in action what we profess to be our ideals and/or beliefs. This is hardly sophistry. Possibly a poor command of English(I’ve already granted that part of my post was nebulous) but “sophistry?” You give me far too much credit.
Party–caught and still hollering, partially right though: I reread #43 carefully to your point of: “#3-I never said you or any other specific “liberal” wanted change for its own sake. I only intended to point out that “change” is so often a political rallying point that it becomes its own end, rather than a means to achieve a specific desired result.” /// AHHHHH!!!!! Three times drafted now.
Patriotism means love of country. Do you want to irrelevantly reply that patriotism can become a political rallying point in its own end? So you see, your “point” is irrelevant==silly of a sort.
THE CONTEXT of the statement was not the false political posturing of an election campaign–the context was the contrast of liberal to conservative thinking. The truth of that comparison should not be hidden/ignored/obscured by going off tangent. It does appear to me you have done this innocently, so I will take “dishonest by intent” off the list.
Your analogy to signs on a wet floor bothers me. Can you tell the truth past an tangential competing need/desire? Dishonest in presentation remains on the list.
Sophistry: hiding what we actually do by choosing the words we use to describe it. The constitution was used to keep slaves legal in the founding of the USA. Slaves/Africans were not men. Maybe another species below that of man===men entitled to Freedom. Is this another Wet Sign on a Dry Floor you are displaying? I fear it is because the truth of the Constitution is clear enough to see and quite the opposite of what you present. Maybe you just don’t know the history and it is unfair to hold you to such a requirement?
Who or what is pulling your strings?
Ha, ha. Answer it for yourself.
Adult fairytales.
Oops- a quick edit- “Provisioning slavery in general, and Article I, Section 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]in particular, were political expediencies that until the 13th amendment unfortunately undermined the entire concept of individual human liberty that the constitution was intended to guarantee.
Party—restating my comment another way for your consideration: if I say I believe all men are free, then I put you into slavery, do you think I really think all men are free, and slavery is just an accomodation?
Do you respond to words or deeds?
Easily mislead or a champion of the truth?
Many ways to shape the clay but your critique of the words/concepts/history of the drafting/changes of the Constitution are idiosyncratic to your own personal druthers. Created by man with all the inherent conflicts. Saying one side of a conflict “controls” is to deny the conflict to begin with.
Dishonest.
Bobbo,
Even you believe the borders are open now, the lawsuit isn’t going to open them anymore.
Furthermore, you can’t possibly believe that Arizona’s law is going to close the border. It doesn’t doe anything about the border.
Where you’ve gone wrong is thinking the borders are “open.”
You still need a visa to legally come here. There are still check points. There are still patrols. There are still immigration raids in factories. It’s still illegal to hire undocumented workers.
Obama has actually tightened things up compared to Bush.
The lawsuit against Arizona doesn’t change any of that.
The lawsuit can’t change the 14th Amendment which is what allows for “anchor babies”. The Arizona law does nothing to close the border and it certainly doesn’t build a multi-trillion dollar fence.
Greg Allan–I envy you. You have an excellent opportunity to really understand that your thinking is very much “over controlled” by words and what you by whatever method have come to think those words mean.
I gave my definition of what “open borders” means above: 12-20 Million illegal Aliens. Now, at post #59 you choose to disagree with me because you define the same term as (basically) not having any enforcement activities at all.
Do you see how shallow your context is, how it misses the point? Your definition defaults to that of being able to freely cross borders without any legal penalties/enforcement at all.
Now–I’m happy to discuss the issue with you by way of either definition BUT I’m not so dogmatic as to require that my, and my definition alone, controls the issue conceptually. I already noted calling the situation an open border was over stated “but” a reasonable one to make a point.
I could go on and make a few more definitional arguments like: if 12 Million airline passengers died over the last 30 years would that be a safe mode of transportation because there is a mandated safety enforcement program in place? Or that several unsafe airplanes were prevented from taking off, or that recently a few drunk pilots were arrested before takeoff?
Your definition is comprised of “inputs” to the issue while mine is comprised of “outcomes.” People don’t care about inputs except for those bureaucrats defending a failed program.
Yes–another ravaging example of your “religious thinking.” Too set in your ways, not flexible, unwilling to adopt a new way of thinking even when such is required to pass over the stream.
I have 6-7 other main points to make, but the hour is late and I made my 13 points earlier.
DUDE!!!! You are smart enough, bright enough, and care enough to gosh darn it, ==== argue better. This one is rather obvious and doesn’t get burdened by my own several biases.
And I’m even feeling warm and toasty all over.
Thanks.
It is a side point but the application of the 14th Amendment to anchor babies has never been ruled on.
The Constitution and our inalienable rights mean/are what the Sup Ct says them are. To the degree conservative = racists, I think how the court might rule is an open question?
W00t!
Take them! PLEASE!!!!