What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Get Her To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - An easy way to get a woman to start a conversation with you - no fancy lines required...
115 Comments
- abduljrus, on 05/06/2009, -2/+44Clinton brings something many people ignore. HAMAS WAS ACTUALLY VOTED IN TO OFFICE!!!
- goonsquad3, on 05/06/2009, -4/+30Bill Clinton, faults aside, is one smart dude.
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -3/+26I always find it fascinating when people break down the Israel/Palestine thing beyond "ZOMG THEY'RE ALL TERRORISTS KILL THEM ALL!!!"
- Jdean0012, on 05/06/2009, -1/+21We just had Bush for eight miserable years and some of you are seriously flaming Bill Clinton? Oh the irony
- abduljrus, on 05/06/2009, -2/+14how would you know if they are or in your assertion if they are not acting in the peoples interest... HAMAS provides free food to school children, free schooling, free medical health and training in vocational school if you don't want to go to a 4 yr college.
You can accuse them of anything you want, I don't like them either simply because of their hardliner positions on the peace process but I would not accuse of NOT looking out for the peoples best interest. - rpgmakr, on 05/06/2009, -3/+14@americanpart: More like "the veteran that got smeared with falsehoods by partisan pundits" guy.
- nevetssav, on 05/06/2009, -0/+11Parliamentary system. 44% is actually a very, very high percentage.
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -0/+9Most Palestinians believe in "justice" before peace, so they are acting in their peoples best interests.
- PanDaru, on 05/06/2009, -0/+9Clinton mentions that :/
- vbullinger, on 05/06/2009, -2/+10Did you just mention the possibility that maybe Israel isn't perfect?
Blasphemy! Jew hater! Antisemite! The nation of Israel and the government of Israel is infallible. Any question of them obviously makes you a Nazi racist! Bury this mini-Eichman!
If I question Bush, that doesn't mean I hate America or Americans. If I say that maybe the government of Israel made a bad decision this one time, that doesn't mean I hate a) Jews b) Israeli citizens or c) even the government of Israel at all. Just means I don't always agree with them. - consonance, on 05/06/2009, -0/+8Your logic is nonsense. Here is a summary of your argument:
"Hitler won an election with a plurality of votes. Therefore everyone who wins an election with a plurality should be compared to Hitler." - Bartboy919, on 05/06/2009, -0/+8Yeah, southerners.
- nepidae, on 05/06/2009, -6/+13***** richard branson
- c010rb1indusa, on 05/06/2009, -2/+8But because the moderate vote was split. It's the equivalent of McCain winning the election if both Obama and Hillary were running against him instead of just Obama. Same way Lincoln was elected in 1860, only that was for our benefit.
- nullcodes, on 05/06/2009, -0/+6The issue Clinton raises is always going to arise in democracy that tries to satisfy the "5 requirements" of a fair voting system ... due to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (1972 Nobel prize).
And no, I havent an alternative -- less government i guess. - Bartboy919, on 05/06/2009, -6/+12hey, don't blame me, I voted for Kerry.
- seiga, on 05/06/2009, -0/+6Because most people understand dogma much more readily than the type of nuance that Bill Clinton is speaking.
In fact most of us are quite often guilty of relying on dogma instead of analyzing a situation, whether it be about religion, politics, or whatever.
Clinton's general argument could also be applied to something like the suspension of habeus corpus, or the suspension of observance of the geneva convention or whathaveyou. He's saying that those trusims we love so much might not hold in all circumstances. - Bartboy919, on 05/06/2009, -0/+6When the other guy starts a war, and signs into law the PATRIOT Act, opposition in full force looks like a good platform.
- Chicken2nite, on 05/06/2009, -0/+6It's a high percentage when you have 3 people running, was his point. Hence Al Franken beats Norm Coleman for Senate with 42% and Jesse Ventura beat him 10 years earlier for Governor with 37%. If you can narrow the field, you increase pool your support.
see Kang v. Kodos
Parliamentary systems certainly better allow third parties to participate with concentrated support; it's a trade-off I suppose. - suzanek, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5***** sir richard ranson. :)
- FrozenPie, on 05/06/2009, -4/+9Putting it into perspective:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/GazaHolo/inde ...
History sure repeats itself in ironic ways - c010rb1indusa, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5Why is that? The Democrats and the Whigs split the vote for Lincoln
Are you actually suggesting that there are reasonable people out there that believe that we would be better off in Lincoln hadn't been elected? - Technohamster, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5That's absolute power in Canada.
- nullcodes, on 05/06/2009, -1/+6Not radical in terms of them being islamo-whacko .. they didn't used to follow the crazy stuff like the taliban or saudis.
- junskey, on 05/06/2009, -7/+12hamas is delicious!
- abduljrus, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4Aside for rednecks, Most southerners would tend to disagree with you. and as we all know, Rednecks don't count.
- cambob76, on 05/06/2009, -3/+7You're ***** kidding yourself.
- vbullinger, on 05/06/2009, -1/+5@AmericanParty
No, our choice wasn't this:
1) Being a Veteran
2) Standing for issues rather than just opposing the other guy
It was this:
1) Giant douche
2) Turd sandwich
South Park already proved this. - mahmoodsdotjpg, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4lincoln was a republican and freed the slaves. as a result, the south hated republicans and wouldn't elect them. obviously clinton knows that lincoln was dead...
- CressCrowbits, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4Except the National Socialists didn't win any of the elections they stood in. Hitler was appointed chancellor after no other parties could form a coalition to bring about a majority, despite only receiving about 1/3rd of the vote, then enacted laws outlawing other parties.
- Swift2, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4You have a brainwashed sense of history. Nothing you say is above the level of the grunting on Fox.
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -1/+4Hamas is fighting a war it simply cannot win. What, will they not stop until every Palestinian is dead? I'm not arguing pro-Israel ***** here, I have no love for the Israelis, but face the facts, people.
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -5/+8Well, they sure as hell ain't acting in the people's best interests. Maybe one day the Palestinians will realize this.
- VassilaZaitsev, on 05/06/2009, -1/+4thats spooky...but you gotta laugh at human nature,its brutally comical
- mirunit, on 05/06/2009, -4/+7@abduljrus
I could care less if they provide food and school to children. The FACT is that they are a militant organization. When you fire nasty rockets at people with F-16's and a will to defend themselves, you are NOT acting in peoples best interest. If Hamas would push for a 2 state solution and stop with the 'destroy the jews' garbage in their charter, we might be getting somewhere.
Looking out for people means making ideological sacrifices so that bombs are not going off everywhere and giving your people a future. Free food, when you live in hell (Gaza), is not of much use. When Hamas starts talking coexistence with Israel and a strong, secular government we will see progress. - Bartboy919, on 05/06/2009, -1/+4I don't hate whites, does that mean I can't hate the KKK?
- Dankenbring, on 05/06/2009, -3/+6It's nice to see an objective analysis on this subject
- j4rcher, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3Well they're all pretty radical!
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3Type "Palestinians" into google image, what do you get
A dozen images of ***** carrying AK-47's wearing ski masks.
How do you define radical, Gulf Arabs may dress and act more conservatively but most of them also just get up and go to work everyday like everyone else instead of cooking up bombs in the kitchen or leading angry mob chants of "death to Israel!" in the streets. - abduljrus, on 05/06/2009, -2/+5So the fact that the International community, including the US, EU and the UN certified the elections there as free and fair does not matter?
- Bartboy919, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3Eh, I like it with pita chips, but with anything else, its not to great.
- jawagas, on 05/06/2009, -1/+4Oh there are PLENTY of people who'll argue very vigoriously over that last line of your comment.
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -2/+5@abduljrus, the mob provided free meals to people in the 30s too, doesn't make them saints.
- Somnabot, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3Godwin's law.
- spartan777, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3Gaza is the biggest open-air prison/concentration camp in the world, they aren't going to roll over and let the Israelies slit their throats. they're going to fight, who wouldn't?
- nevetssav, on 05/06/2009, -1/+4_were_
Funny things happen when countries from another continent tell you your borders aren't your borders any more.
Edit, just to be clear: it probably is an exaggeration, but it's not that big of a stretch when you remember the word "were." - JagPop, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3Gee, it must be early in the morning. No, it "IS" early in the morning. I was half hoping that Clinton would mention how Bush was responsible for the coup that followed the elections. Bush didn't like nor respect the results of the election so he armed and prodded Fatah to coup against Hamas. Hamas saw it coming and pre-empted the Fatah coup.
How could I possibly have even hoped that Clinton would state that? I expect too much truth from our politicians this early in the morning. - Swift2, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3If, if, if. If Bush hadn't been elected -- er, chosen -- we'd be in better shape today.
Clinton didn't exclusively blame Arafat, though. He worked out a compromise, and Arafat should have taken it. - JagPop, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2"Details matter", said Clinton.
You said, "...one of the best Israel could ever hope to offer..." -- you got that right. Zionists only offer crap and crap-over-easy, take your choice. Even Bush called the deal "Swiss Cheese". - mclazerlou, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2Well they are beating him over the head not because he said he does or doesn't like Hamas, they are beating him over his head for his absurd claim that by feeding and "schooling" people (if you can count a fundamentalist education looking out for someone's best interest), that somehow constitutes Hamas looking out for the people's best interest, when the reality is that Hamas' brand of fundamentalism and violence before diplomacy has devastated the lives of people living in Gaza. Israel and the United States and the whole frickin world would feed (incidentally, Hamas often feeds the people with the food they confiscate from UN programs!) and educate the people of Gaza if their leaders would stop waging war and purposefully and openly targeting innocent civilians from their own civilian centers. In fact, Hamas's power in Gaza is sadly directly proportional to the suffering and desperation of its own people.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 116 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is