zapatos

I guess I don't understand English as well as I thought I did because I still fail to see how that statement is an acknowledgement that her controversial statement was an anti-semitic trope. Yes, we can agree that she made anti-Semitic comments in the past. I did read it. Thank you for that.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but can you please quote the part of her statement that indicated her own statement was an anti-semitic trope?

No place in her apology did she state that she made an anti-semitic remark. You can choose to interpret the statement as apologizing for an anti-semitic remark if you'd like, but she was far from clear if that is what she meant. If she wanted to be unequivocal she could have said "I unequivocally apologize for my anti-semitic remark". Simple, clean, no room for confusion or interpretation. Seriously? Anyone who doesn't speak up to what they believe to be wrong, has no business being a public servant.

As far as I can tell she was criticizing neither Israel or Jewish entities. She was criticizing US lawmakers. In reading her apology, she seemed to be apologizing because she knew some may have been offended, not because she made anti-semitic remarks. I appreciate her recognizing that some may have been offended, and given the pressure put on her I think it was wise of her to express remorse. However, I still see nothing that was anti-semitic, and I'm unsure in what other way she could have made that same criticism of US lawmakers.

She suggested that some in Congress were pro-Israel simply because of the donations they receive.

Thank you both for the replies.

I really am a bit confused. Didn't she simply make the claim that some were being influenced by money that came from Jewish sources? The same can be said about people being influenced by money that comes from gun manufacturing sources, etc. Is pointing out that the money comes from pro-Jewish sources unacceptable, even if true?

How does melting ice result in less water in rivers?

And in my mind that should be the end of the story.

I missed the anti-Semitic part. Was it simply the reference to money? If so I don't really understand it as I often hear people criticized for being influenced by money, whether it has to do with taxes, guns, regulations, or any other issues before congress.

There could be issues with property rights, environmental laws, building regulations, voters, interstate commerce, human rights, etc.

I've wondered about that! Thanks!

Glad to see you back. Did you have any success?

So you might kill a mouse and leave it on the doorstep? Cruise people's backyards at night? Walk across the kitchen counter? Very strange question you have.

Well we'd better get a move on then! If we leave now and travel at 1/4 the speed of light we can just get from side to side in about 400,000 years. And then we still have to find parking, get the spaceship cleaned, find a place to pitch the tent...

"When the body is dehydrated, the brain can temporarily contract or shrink from fluid loss. This mechanism causes the brain to pull away from the skull..."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/earths-oldest-known-rock-found-211500968.html

You don't trust the anonymous people telling you things through Wikipedia but you trust the anonymous people telling you things here? People here cite Wikipedia on a regular basis.

If a big portion of the hull is out of water, its design at the surface is critical wrt speed. It also has to deal with waves. I imagine the thrust generated by the propeller is also impacted by its depth.

Special Relativity.

If something went faster than the speed of light, no laws would be broken. Instead, we would realize that we had misunderstood how some aspects of physics work. As far as what would happen, that is unknown. Given that we didn't actually understand how some aspects of physics work, we would be in no position to make reasonable predictions.

May I ask who is doing that?

No straw man. I can see why you thought I meant "unacceptable to me". We're good.

I believe they felt it was an attempt to relieve the pressure on Trump without actually moving the needle toward opening government. So from their perspective, the two main issues of opening government and border security, were completely ignored. Paying the workers, which is good for the workers of course, does nothing to get food inspectors, etc. back to work. All it would do is prolong the government shutdown by making things easier for Trump. So the Republicans are saying "our bill will help the workers by getting them paid" and the Democrats are responding with "our bill will help the workers by getting them paid AND reopen government". Voting 'yes' on the Republican bill will only delay reopening government. From my perspective, that was a smart move by Republicans. They knew it wouldn't get passed but they figured it would make them look good and make the Democrats look bad. And on the off-chance that it passed, it would give Trump greater ability to fight for his wall.

What I meant was that it was unacceptable to the Democrats, not to me. I wasn't voting.