jerryskids

I've said earlier: you can argue whether it was correct for Trump to bail out the economy, but at least there is a reason. For Biden/Harris to dump even more in when it wasn't needed, and to call it "inflation Reduction Act," is inexcusable. HTH

Trump's contributions to the debt were in line with Saint Barack and others before him, and inflation was under control. Again, troll better

If you are comparing dumping in 2020 due to the entire US economy being shut down, vs. doing it 4+ years later, then yes. Be a better troll, MDC.

Fine. Then Hamas needs to be finished off and removed from power. Some civilians will die in this process; that happens in war, especially when the civilians support the enemy leadership, and said leadership sh1ts on the Geneva convention. The alternative to Kamala is truckloads of money to help Hamas rebuild, and your Palestinian friends continue to justify supporting Hamas, because they are in power and there is noone else. Feel free to question Israeli policy. So hey, in your questioning, how do these truckloads of money for Hamas and Hezbollah lead to Hamas being "there is no one else"?

Israel has shown that they can launch missiles into Iran that Iran can't detect. They could destroy every nuclear facility and airstrip in a day if they want. Tim thinks this is a bad thing. Nuance.

Sure there can be a decisive victory against Iran, and the Sunnis want nothing to do with Iran. Sunni countries want to move forward, unburdened by what has been. Palestinians are a problem because they elect terrorist groups like Hamas, they have never wanted a two-state solution, and their terrorist tendencies make it such that none of the surrounding countries want anything to do with them. Except for the multiple Palestinians you know who are Americanized, of course. Apparently you think a better solution is to provide hundreds of millions/billions of dollars to terrorist regimes, so that Iran can develop nukes and we truly are stuck in a situation where they always have that threat. Well, you and Kamala. Brilliant!

How? Are you new to this chat thing? Do I need to type "if so, how?"

Are they different than what I described?

Thoughts on my main point: the need for a strong, decisive victory over Iran and its proxies, leading to a Sunni expansion of the Abraham accords?

Nah, I'll take it at face value that he knows a guy. Obviously, this guy (or his family before him) escaped the hellhole that is Hamas. Presumably, he's been here a while his whole life or most of it, and is fairly Americanized. Tim thinks he represents the majority of Palestinians in Gaza, who to this day overwhelmingly support Hamas. I don't really know how to have a rational discussion with him on this topic.

She also thinks that printing trillions of dollars and dumping it into the economy lowers inflation, and that giving federal funds to buy houses won't increase housing prices.

Thanks. For workouts, I'm only thinking about the rowing machine. I like to watch a Netflix show while I do it (on the 3rd episode of Dexter, meh, I'm not sure it will stick), listen to pods, or music, but I have to blast the volume even with the noise cancelling of the Jabra.

I'm thinking of grabbing these Bose headphones: https://www.amazon.com/Bose-QuietComfort-Cancelling-Headphones-Bluetooth/dp/B0D4Z9BZV2?pd_rd_w=Gs0e6&content-id=amzn1.sym.73dc6561-f64a-4c91-90ad-ba58f539ea6e&pf_rd_p=73dc6561-f64a-4c91-90ad-ba58f539ea6e&pf_rd_r=6PJBKKKPQS952HEK26CG&pd_rd_wg=wY8zz&pd_rd_r=173c484a-df38-4bc6-8674-8b26633cda20&pd_rd_i=B0D4Z9HG1X&th=1 I "had" Bose headphones over a decade ago and loved them, but somehow, my wife absconded them, and now they are hers. She still uses them all the time. I have Jabra 85 earbuds which I like well enough, but there are some things (yard work, rowing machine, listening to good music) that I do regularly and I'd like serious noise cancellation, along with occasional travel etc. Anyone have experience with these?

1. Again, "plenty." There are plenty of Israelis who have rational ideological differences with Netanyahu and the conservative wing of Israel. There are far fewer who disagree with Israel's need to win this war. "Winning" means destroying Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Not providing nine and ten figures of US dollars to them to enable their rebuild, while hampering Israel's ability to win the war. 2. I made no characterization of Palestinians, or Muslims in general. I have no idea what this strawman is, but I'm not lowering myself to go there. As usual you've ignored my points to which you don't have (even bad, like these) responses.

There is not a single accurate word in this post. 1. They absolutely have https://www.axios.com/2024/06/26/us-israel-resolve-weapons-shipments-bombs 2. So, you are saying that aid to Gaza actually goes to Palestinians, and aid to Lebanon actually goes to non-Hezbollah? 3. To compare Netanyahu doing what is necessary to win (as per my first post on this subject) with the pure evil that is Hamas and Hezbollah, is exactly the kind of moral relativism I was discussing. "They are both doing bad things," as if they are the same, is a disgusting position. The attack on Hezbollah in particular was the greatest surgical targeted attack in the history of urban warfare. You and your ilk hate it because it flies in the face of your misinformation about Israel doing "genocide." You know exactly, unfortunately, why some civilians must suffer in this. If you cared one iota for them, you would protest against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. They are the problem. To use an old phrase of yours, full stop.

Which assumptions are wrong? That the US has throttled Israel? That Kamala pledged money to terror states? Or are you naive enough to think that aid money goes to the actual suffering people in those countries. Hamas doesn't give a sh1t about Palestinian civilians; they use them for human shields, and have 20 years of history taking aid for themselves and to build their terrorist infrastructure. Hezbollah was supposed to leave southern Lebanon 20 years ago under the coordination of the UN, how has that gone? I've said it before, but you exhibit the biggest fallacy of liberalism: the belief of moral relativism, combined with the belief that other cultures have the same morals and goals as the West does.

Great, bipartisan statement. Dems should run that guy for POTUS, who is he?

I increasingly think that you live in a fantasy time warp where you think your party is the party it was 20 years ago. It isn't; it isn't close. Perhaps the frog boiled too slowly for you to see it? One of the areas that the POTUS has outsized influence is foreign policy. On this alone she should be disqualified. We have a unique window right now to put an end to Iran's reign of terror in the middle east. The Sunni states were holding back from further agreements with the West because they thought Israel might be a paper tiger. Ends up, they are far from it. Hamas and Hezbollah are decimated, Iran is quivering... NOW is the time to stomp them out, decisively, and from that, expand on the Abraham Accords. Instead, within the past few days, Harris has announced significant aid to Hezbollah (aid to Lebanon is aid to Hezbollah) and Hamas (aid to Gaza is aid to Hamas). She will also surely want to give more billions of dollars to Iran so that they can continue their quest for nukes. Kamala is WW3 waiting to happen.

Perhaps. I don't find a lot of value in arguing whether the earth is overall warming or not, although a case can be made for it not doing so. You always hear about glaciers that are retreating, for instance, because that's what the climate cult wants you to hear. You probably don't hear about the glaciers that are growing though. For example: Perhaps. But the gulf does seem to be getting warmer, independent of the cause. So what, if anything, do we do to adapt?

We can debate who or what is causing climate change, but it's a fact that the Gulf of Mexico is warmer than historically, and that this leads to worse hurricanes. That's just science.

Tropical Storm Leslie is in the middle of the Atlantic. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/

Well, thank you, Captain Obvious.

Yeah, Kate was maybe a reach. How about a young Demi Moore? https://www.google.com/search?q=demi+moore+young&sca_esv=0a650f077e31c052&sxsrf=ADLYWIKyZdTKprzGDy2sxVwxX_ti8l-mCg:1728399501574&source=hp&biw=1920&bih=911&ei=jUgFZ6n4IOGikPIPnJOFwQ8&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZwVWnWZ91xYNY3YYOM35nqO-Loh2hvnz&ved=0ahUKEwjp8sbyhf-IAxVhEUQIHZxJIfgQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=demi+moore+young&gs_lp=EgNpbWciEGRlbWkgbW9vcmUgeW91bmcyCxAAGIAEGLEDGIMBMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAESM8dUABYxRhwAHgAkAEAmAFGoAGKCKoBAjE2uAEDyAEA-AEBigILZ3dzLXdpei1pbWeYAhCgAtEIwgIEECMYJ8ICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIIEAAYgAQYsQPCAg0QABiABBixAxiDARgKwgIHEAAYgAQYCpgDAJIHAjE2oAe5WA&sclient=img&udm=2 The point of the study was that "exotic" looks tended to get a wide range of scores -- some loved 'em, some hated 'em.

Well... Long ago I read an article about a study where guys rated women on a scale of 1-5. They got a fascinating result. The 4s, they found, were classical beauties that everyone thought were attractive. Kate Beckinsale, perhaps. The women with the most 5s, however, also got a lot of (if not the most) 1s. I think of Uma Thurman here. I personally don't find her attractive (although not a 1). But some guys would crawl over broken glass to drink her pee. Anna Taylor-Joy seems like a more recent example.

Well, 4 is better than 5. It's kinda like golf that way.