Raider5678

It's fine. However, that's not an answer. Alright. You hold the shield while there are 10k Arabs screaming for your death, throwing rocks at you, carrying explosives, and trying to stab you with knives. Or. Just use the fence like they're doing.

How? Tell me how? You made the claim. Back it up and present it with evidence. Here's mine:

And what do you propose they do? Just let them go through? No, they don't. The protestors do not live in Israel. What is Israel doing to them that charging a tank with a rock is better than life? Moving an embassy to Jerusalem? Do you realize how insane that sounds? "Israel moved their Embassy to Jerusalem. It's all over. I hate my life. Let's go charge a tank with a rock. THEY DID THIS TO ME!!!" Common sense disappears when it comes to Israel.

Perhaps it's because all of them promised to move the Embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? https://ntknetwork.com/hillary-clinton-in-1999-jerusalem-is-eternal-and-indivisible-capital-of-israel/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/what-have-past-presidents-said-about-israel-and-jerusalem/9234736

If the self-defense argument doesn't work until one is actually attacked, then it's a good thing Israel was using self-defense. Because you know. 10k Arabs screaming for the death of Jews started charging the fence, cutting it with wire cutters, throwing rocks at the soldiers, and climbing the fence. That constitutes an attack. We could talk about your version of it until the cows come home. However, your version doesn't line up with plain fact. The protestors are not people living inside of Israel. The protestors are people living outside of Israel. So why do you keep mentioning there are Palanstinaisn living within Israel's borders? It's painfully obvious that the protestors we're talking about aren't the ones living in Israel. If the protestors were living in Israel, what are they doing threatening to invade the border?

Then it's a good thing the Jewish people aren't trying to live in Egypt. Why does it matter if there is no evidence Jewish people were ever in Egypt? Palestinians, while having been in that territory for several hundreds of years, were not the first. But regardless, even then, the last is Israel's. They were given it. In fact, they were given it when they were "relocated there from parts of Europe". You know. After the Holocaust, and most of the world decided to let Jews have their own country to live in. Additionally, that country is not some massive piece of land. It's less than 70% the size of Maryland. As for the land Israel supposedly "conquered from the Palestinian", you're only told half the story. What they didn't tell you is that the Egyptians had more than 100,000 troops there and just under 1,000 tanks, and had just announced to the world they were going to invade Israel and exterminate the Jews. Israel promptly moved their forces against Egypt and inflicted heavy losses. Sure, you could say it was unprovoked, and then I can say you're blind. However, while Israel was busy fighting Egyptian forces, Syria and Jordan, two massive countries to the North and East of Israel, both simultaneously invaded as well. Jordan invaded the west bank, and Syria invaded Golan heights, both supported by the Soviet Union. Israel managed to respond to over them, and after repelling the more than 100,000 soldiers pouring into their country seized the west bank and East Jerusalem. All this, with less than 1,000 casualties on the Israeli side. Comparing it to slavery is a terrible comparison. The Palestinians who were shot are from outside of Israel. Nobody is forcing them to protest, nobody is holding them captive, nobody is forcing them to do anything. Israel made it very clear. Do not approach the fence, or we will shoot you. They used tear gas and rubber bullets to keep them away from the fence for weeks. Yet they still pushed towards the fence, hurled rocks and whatever else they could find at the Isralies, and called for the death of Israel. Peaceful. When they swarmed the fence, the Israelis opened fire. This isn't covered by fact. Let's look at all the times they were offered their own state and land. Even Jerusalem. In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state. In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state. In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan. The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence. The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism. In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank. In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis. In addition from 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical. So you would propose they do what? Wait until the protesters were actively killing them before shooting? Yes. We're so cruel. Israel moved THEIR embassy, from inside THEIR country, to another place inside THEIR capital. Just terrible.

I don't really see how it would be... However, that doesn't mean I don't believe it can be. I just wouldn't know where.

Oh. I thought you were talking about grade-schools, not colleges.

What does any of this have to do with what they teach in schools? No offense intended, I see the point you're making.

Where is the money being siphoned off for private profit? Honest question. I thought that's what you meant when you said we should invest heavily in education, my bad. In my defense, I feel like that was a little bit unclarified. What private profit though? Where is the money going? Schools typically get their food from a program called NSLP. It stands for National School Lunch Program. Now, I've been looking into how they send the food they receive from NSLP to be processed at more expensive rates because then they do not have to pay skilled kitchen staff to cook actual meals. I don't believe however they're making any significant savings from this practice, however, I'm looking into it. How would the money be allocated to teaching us more though? We already have almost the entire day scheduled with classes, multiple after-school activities, and the only time where they could fit more teaching time in is study hall. And I don't suggest getting rid of study hall, as that's where most kids do their homework because they don't do it at home. Another thing they could do is shorten class times in order to fit in more courses, however, I think we both can see the downsides of reducing quality for quantity. IMO, we should switch to a system that's called mastery learning. At my state government thing, I passed a bill that would mandate the creation of a mastery education system. Anyways, a lot of popular learning sites like Khan Academy use this system. It's a lot like the current system, with a few changes. One of the major things being, decreasing obsession with assessments and tests. I highly encourage you to look into it, as I'm interested in your opinion of it. Could you give an example of how the curriculum is being guided by profit motives?

We wish. Cafeteria food absolutely sucks. I'd agree with this. The system is the problem, not the amount of money they have. Unless I'm wrong lobbyists have little control over STEM subjects. Climate change is taught as fact in schools, as it should be. Not as a myth. What privatization are you talking about? The curriculums are common core, which was an absolutely horrible attempt by the government to create a standardized curriculum. Teachers are state workers. School construction is privatized, so is some janitorial and maintenance services, but how is that going to affect young minds?

Also, that GPS system is from the 1970s-1990s. We have a few upgrades we could make to it. Just a few.

I'm not sure. You could check it.

Yes. I reported it. It had "wixsite" or something like that right after ".com" so it was a self made site by the poster.

Kinda honored I was confused with you

That'd be me.

I've heard some pretty disturbing theories on why that's the case.

Laughing my ass off. Have it your way. Damn. Proof? Yes. Because we all know the media is massively in Trump's favor. (Facts say that 80% of media coverage on Trump is negative. Your proof?) http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/trump-and-media-bias Yes, I'm certain. They're all just down here HOPING he lies. HOPING he rips them off. HOPING he does bad things. Because you know. Reasons. Pretty much everyone in politics lies constantly. All those studies that show people still support Trump even though he lied, are the same applied to the other side. Bill Clinton. Literally got impeached because of lying. His approval rating did fine the whole time: http://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx You're rational. There's no way you're telling me you believe that people not caring if the politician is lying is ONLY with Trump. Prove it. Prove it. Yes it is. Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton. If that's the case, we should try and execute them. This I can agree with. This is really vague. But true. I won a chess game without asking permission. Bullshit. Prove it. Go out and take a study. Tell me how many people you meet, who are American and believe "immoral behavior is loosely justified provided the result is a success." You're talking out of your ass. No. We don't. Prove it. Again, bullshit. People who do what's right for the sake of what's right are typically respected, not considered stupid by society. I saw a stupid person win the lottery the other year. He went bankrupt in a few weeks. Literally prove a single statement you made here. Go ahead. Hey. If rants are allowed, without evidence, without proof, without care, without reason, and have no discussion value, I can make my own.

If I was, I'd enforce the rules on this particular thread. At the very minimum put in a question. No. They don't. It's annoying. Correction, large number of Americans who can be bought. Prove it. Prove it. Kind of like the parties have successfully done wouldn't you say? I can see why. Trust me. Trump didn't start this. Fox News as compared to CBS, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. I'm astounded. It must be because the media all praises Trump. Because we all know Republicans trust the media.

Neither do I, but the simple fact that he wasn't called out on this being a rant and not being a discussion at all tells a story on it's own. Fine. Let's discuss this. I'd say if it WAS increasing, #1 reason is that the average American receives $1,000 dollars from income tax cuts. Yes, I know. Nancy Pelosi says it's just pocket crumbs. But then, she's worth $40,000,000, and us down here making 10-12k a year raising a family of four..... $1,000 helps quite a bit(around $400 for us, since we make less than the median 59k which is where the $1,000 figure comes from). Pocket crumbs or not, it's extremely helpful. For $400 you can change the tires on your car, buy two months worth of groceries and household supplies, put it in a savings account, etc. And I'm not discussing whether the tax cuts are good or not. Don't even go there.

I'm gonna get hammered for saying this: But what are you trying to discuss? I could have sworn rants like this were considered against the rules. There's not a single question in the OP. It's all statements, not backed up by sources, and it's a rant. There's nothing to discuss. And then you guys wonder why I think you're biased......

Culpability means responsibility for a fault So, you're saying: People who deny their responsibility for a fault by throwing out a pithy bumper sticker saying Unless I'm way off, you're saying it's their responsibility for Trump's actions of lying about Stormy Daniels?

If he wasn't trying to say that somehow people other then the President are responsible for the president lying about Stormy Daniels, I have no idea what he's trying to say. Do you?

What is your point then? This is my problem with party politics.

The statement "He's my president, not my moral advisor" does not, in any way, say they're not critical of those faults. If anything, it's pointing out they do have a problem with it. Otherwise, they'd just defend those faults. I was agreeing with him. What the heck are you talking about?