Hey leftist Trump haters, read it and weep.
byronglimish wrote:
Are you vying for the title of "champion of projection"?
No, I believe you've won that already.
nwtk2007 wrote:
Besides them being filled with hate, irrational, lying idiots??
Stones and glass houses...
Barracuda2020 wrote:
None of whom you mentioned even comes close to Trump, your righteous attitude is a complete wash.
The posts from you, just cannot stop laughing.
Insanely funny.
Barracuda2020 wrote:
And do you recall Mueller stating if he wasn't the POTUS he'd have charges against him and arrested?
Mueller contradicted himself on that point twice, so I don't know what his position is on that.
byronglimish wrote:
I've read a few people saying the same thing of Obama.
"That he wasn't perfect" but the ones who will say that, don't have anything specific to add.
What specifically are the bad points of Shiff and Nadler?
It more of dislike for some of the decsions made ;
The bad point about Schiff is the support of Israel me personally I don't think we should be involved other then being member of the UN .When he urged Obama to veto the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, it sounds like Schiff was following his own agenda. it allows for a possible end to the Civil war between Israel and Palestine Even through it did pass with a 14-0 with United States abstaining.
With Nadler one thing I can think of is when George W was going thru inpreachment the Articles were produced he didn't push them forward. The reasoning I agree with it was to close to the election and it would distract.
I don't know why the change presently unless the impreachment on Trump has changed his outlook. The only thing I can figure is ether the feud or Nadler thinks that this particular case is worst then George W.
zombinis3 wrote:
It more of dislike for some of the decsions made ;
The bad point about Schiff is the support of Israel me personally I don't think we should be involved other then being member of the UN .When he urged Obama to veto the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, it sounds like Schiff was following his own agenda. it allows for a possible end to the Civil war between Israel and Palestine Even through it did pass with a 14-0 with United States abstaining.
With Nadler one thing I can think of is when George W was going thru inpreachment the Articles were produced he didn't push them forward. The reasoning I agree with it was to close to the election and it would distract.
I don't know why the change presently unless the impreachment on Trump has changed his outlook. The only thing I can figure is ether the feud or Nadler thinks that this particular case is worst then George W.
It more of dislike for some of the decsions made ;... (
show quote)
So you believe the U.N. is a fair and balanced organization when it deals with Israel?
byronglimish wrote:
So you believe the U.N. is a fair and balanced organization when it deals with Israel?
Fair is a personal definition of the person. Whether the treatment of Israel is fair or not is to be considered by the one making the comparison. Like I mentioned earlier I don't think we should be involved because of that belief I haven't followed the details. What I have learned is in passing , Israel has requested permission to have a sort of DMZ between the boundaries. Then they build in that zone then request an added zone. The last report dated 6/19/18 made by Special Coordinator Nickolay Mladenov stated Israel has the duty to the protect citizens but must use live fire with restaint. Which goes against logic if someone is firing at you, you should be able to protect yourself. The one problem is which group is actually doing the aggressive actions. Under cover of the protest the groups Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other militants engaged in violent and provocative acts. Are they actually in support of the Palestinian people or just causing problems?
zombinis3 wrote:
Fair is a personal definition of the person. Whether the treatment of Israel is fair or not is to be considered by the one making the comparison. Like I mentioned earlier I don't think we should be involved because of that belief I haven't followed the details. What I have learned is in passing , Israel has requested permission to have a sort of DMZ between the boundaries. Then they build in that zone then request an added zone. The last report dated 6/19/18 made by Special Coordinator Nickolay Mladenov stated Israel has the duty to the protect citizens but must use live fire with restaint. Which goes against logic if someone is firing at you, you should be able to protect yourself. The one problem is which group is actually doing the aggressive actions. Under cover of the protest the groups Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other militants engaged in violent and provocative acts. Are they actually in support of the Palestinian people or just causing problems?
Fair is a personal definition of the person. Wheth... (
show quote)
.
Israel is only encroaching to make it safer.
There are many middle eastern people who want to destroy Israel, not co-exist.
Many of the people's have a great desire in their hearts to completely eliminate Israel from the earth.
The U.N. makes decisions while not taking this fact into account.
The most coveted place in the world is Jerusalem.
byronglimish wrote:
.
Israel is only encroaching to make it safer.
There are many middle eastern people who want to destroy Israel, not co-exist.
Many of the people's have a great desire in their hearts to completely eliminate Israel from the earth.
The U.N. makes decisions while not taking this fact into account.
The most coveted place in the world is Jerusalem.
The boundaries are lost to time. By encroaching on the boundaries wouldn't you be upset because the land you think is yours is being taken? I know there are a lot of groups have a intense dislike for Israel, could it be possible that the dislike is being caused by the way Israel has acted? Beside the fact the people's beliefs aren't to popular in the region. If I remember my history correctly I think it was before WW1 the people were prefectly happy to coexist. Who is to say that since the region believes in revenge killings that in the distant past that someone didn't offend. Revenge dues have long memories alot like the Hatfields and Mcoys. U.N. decisions I'm not party to the discussion all I have on that note is what I've heard.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.