Mr. Toad's Wild Ride

You are responding to this thread….this thread is created by me.  You IL in fact were the first person to post in this thread so how can you be claiming to be responding to Garg when you were the very first poster complaining that this thread was political?  This is MY thread, MY topic.  Screw off and leave me and my thread alone.  Do me a favour IL, if you see a thread created by me, just don’t post in it or stay on topic if you just can’t resist posting in my forum topic threads because you can’t resist me for some reason.  I have asked the moderators to ask you to do the same thing.  We have a negative history and we should just avoid each other.

Please stop complaining. When you own the site you can make up the rules. I don’t give a rats if it is a thread made by you or not. If the thread is political i will say so and i will comment as i see fit.

I never did anything except point out it this thread is political, and that is my opinion.

You tend to blow up my words however innocuous and make them into something more. This is not a good idea. I know it may be difficult for you, but a thread created by you is only that: a thread created by you. If you wanted to make it private, you might consider emailing to friends. In a public forum, anybody can post.

I wish you would drop it. It would never have gone past a first post without you constantly posting this gibberish.

The best Hitler video, is the Hitler learns Cowboys lose first game in new stadium. I’m a life long Cowboy fan and I love it. You got to learn to laugh about some things- like Jerry Jones running the Dallas Cowboys.

Chick-Fl-A also sells Ice Cream, Milkshakes, Salads, Combo Meals,etc. I have ate at McDonald’s before and I only like the McFlurries and Fries. Wendy’s is passable also but that may change to a dislike because of their new fries. Burger King is also passable, but CFA is my first choice. By the way, I am a regular at CFA.

Yes and no, Stuka.  It would only make vetoing a budget a thing of the past, in other words, it would streamline the budget process.  But ONLY if the Congress decides to spend MORE then they get in taxes.  Bear in mind, if Congress decides to actually, don’t faint now, spend ONLY what it has without a deficit, then it only needs a simple majority and a signature instead of a super majority AND a signature.  Likewise, if the budget has no deficit, then a veto can still be over-ridden by a super majority.

The whole idea is to make it SOO hard to go into debt that most times the country will operate above board.

In fact, I’d like to see legislation that states that 10% of all taxes MUST be invested in local government or domestic corporate bonds. (Relatively secure, helps the country or countrymen.)  Eventually, the feds should have enough invested throughout the land that they will never need to tax the people again.

Furthermore, that’s not so outlandish an idea.  Many governments domestically and abroad are buying mutual funds to supplement their income so they can ease the tax burden.  Why can’t the feds?

I was hoping someone would open a thread about this.  Here’s a piece I wrote while exchanging e-mails with a friend on Lost in Translation.  Hope it doesn’t give anything away.
–----------
Hmm…I am wondering if my comments right now are influenced by seeing Munich over the weekend.  I felt Spielberg was reaching for a particular audience, specifically the hard conservative Israelis.  While the movie isn’t sympathetic to the Palestinians, it’s not unsympathetic to them either.  But really, it creates very thin Palestinian characters without really exploring what it is they are doing.  I believe Spielberg chose this route because he wanted to appeal to those conservatives, who really don’t give a damn what the Palestinians feel or want or need.  Rather, the movie showed everything a right-wing Israeli would see:  murders, terror, etc.  It also expressed the rage, anger, and frustration of the conservatives as well.  But then it showed what the logical extension of all those feelings, what those ideas would lead to, and not on a social level, but a deeply personal one, especially how loving Israel can make you less Jewish.

As such, I don’t think this is an Israel-Palestine movie.  It’s something that has been done rarely:  an Israel-Israel movie.  It’s an attempt in my mind to bridge the gap between the deep divisions in Israeli society.  Or maybe not bridge, but convince the other side.  Hence, its appeal and its focus are tightly played on the self-destructive nature of revenge, typical in some ways of many revenge movies recently (with the notable exception of Quentin Tarrantino), but also elevating that sensibility and relating it to a concrete social dilemma.

Thank G-d! That explains everything. :D

@Mr:

I disagree a bit here. I don’t think this war is a question of legal or illegal.
I don’t think you can sum up this war in one question at all. It is a clouded and complicated iusse.

It truly is, and everyone has different emphasises of importance on different questions on that issue.

If one is going to agrue the legality of this war than one has to say that action in Kosovo was illegal and should not have been done. The UN, as a body, did not approve it. However, the question is was it the right thing to do? I would think yes.

But the situation was different: First it was NATO going in, second the UN later de facto approved the action.

everyone else can ignore this…

Mitchell, its Craig. Just post here when you’re here, so I know you’re here!