ewsieg

I thought it was a mix of both until she did the obligatory "let's make some noise" that everyone does and everyone gets a reaction too.

This is the correct answer.

I heard an interview from a democrat that is running against Wasserman-Schultz in her primary that "from the river to the sea" was first said by some right wing party in Israel, so therefore you 'need to learn your history' before you claim it's used by Palestinians/pro-palestine folks in a disparaging way. Can't believe I now have to root for Wasserman-Schultz....this world is so messed up.

I was just pointing out that depending on who you heard it from, she was booed mercilessly or the fans loved it. Sounds like a mix of both to me.

Makes sense, It's much more important when you have a view you care about so passionately, that you only share with like minded individuals and avoid anyone else, especially those that could actually present that view to a larger audience.

Probably not the best thing for an ambassador of a neighboring country to say, but I definitely got a laugh out of it. I suspect he's not entirely wrong either.

I guess like most things, you'll hear what you want to hear.

I was just trying to respond with it and was surprised it was not allowing that either. Listening to it now, No Code in its entirety, nice!

Sounds about the same for me, although I'll defend the No Code album until the day I die. Since the 2000's, seems like I'd try every album and would find at least 1 song I liked, but often not much more than that. I've only played this album once and enjoyed it straight through. That said, I can't identify any one single song that I think i'll prefer over the rest. Not sure if that just speaks to the entire album being better than I expected or if maybe I just liked the overall song but maybe in the end I won't enjoy this one as much as I think I will. Guess time will tell.

What is going on in this forum? I try and take a step back (away from news/politics) a bit over the last few months and most of you are complaining about what's going on with young people on college campuses? Just like that and Pfife is the only non-Trump loyalist. The rest of you are just fine talking GOP talking points? I thought we weren't allowed to criticize anything that could potentially make the left look bad to ensure Trump doesn't win? 🙂

Sounds like the US knew about a "limited" response. I don't know. I wanted Israel to 'take the win' and see if we could find a way to deal with Iran in less public ways. That said, almost wish it wasn't 'limited'. If you're going to do it, do it. I keep hearing that US intelligence says Iran is close to a nuclear bomb again. If true and they just did a 'limited' response, it only hurt the situation.

For several years, I worked on a team where my customers would email their request to us and that would create a ticket for us. We were the last team in my company (large telecommunications company) that a customer could reach us via email, versus having to call into one of our call centers or open a request/ticket online. As such, the email would eventually get shared on reddit or some other forum and we'd get someone that found the email address and would reach out to us for stuff not related at all to our role. For instance some kid on reddit didn't understand how to read a traceroute and found our email address. We'd get complaints that we were the cause of their World of Warcraft being slow. Some of them would share information which either didn't show any issue at all, or showed trouble before they even left their home network. Management decided to have all of our tickets send out surveys and it went bad. Nearly 100% of our bad survey responses were these non customer complaints that shouldn't have had our info anyway. Mgmt was furious and of course never took the time to understand this, just harped on us to 'fix the numbers'. We eventually found out if we closed a ticket a certain way, a survey wouldn't get sent out. Add in the fact we had so many repeat customers we asked a few of them to fill out a survey monthly and soon enough we were consistently the best rated team. Absolutely nothing changed in terms of the service we were providing, yet mgmt touted it as a huge improvement that they drove. Gotta love corporate America.

I have no problem with an aggressive defense strategy, but if you want my support, I hope you follow international laws even if your enemies don't. But if the defense of "that's just what they do" is valid, them what are we doing in Ukraine with Russia? That's just what they do. Lastly, if Israeli truly will kill anyone that kills there own, why didn't they kill OJ? I would have been perfectly fine with Israeli dropping a jdam on a foursome with OJ on a golf course in there last 30 years.

You're just looking at this as black and white....just sayin' I am not upset about who was killed by Israel in that attack, simply felt it crossed a line. I have no qualms with anyone saying they think it was worth it, but if the way it was carried out doesn't at least give you pause, I won't put much value in your opinion.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Iran probably sanctioned both of those. But if Iran tortures prisoners of war, does that mean we should do the same to their troops?

I'd argue Israel taking a small crew into Iran and killing this general in his home would be less of a line crossed then killing him in an embassy in a different country altogether.

I certainly don't want to get into moral high ground statements when we're talking Iran, but Israel bombed an embassy in an entirely different sovereign nation. That just doesn't sit right with me, even if I'm not sad about the loss of life of the Iranian military members and acknowledge their sins.

We could go for ever if we want to trade 'who started it' stories, but Israel hitting an embassy was grounds for war from Iran. Israel crossed a line. Iran, as stated, would prefer to let their proxies do the dirty work, but by launching everything at the same time, giving Israel and it's partners time to address each wave separately, that indicates to me Iran didn't want to create great damage. Would they have preferred a few get through? Probably, but I think they expected most to get knocked down. On paper, they can still tout they fired so many to make it look impressive, but they wanted to no part in this, but felt they had to respond to a unprecedented attack on their embassy. I agree with Biden's response to Israel, with multiple Muslim countries stepping up to defend Israel, Israel needs to accept it as a great win and see if it can't build from it with it's local partners.

Another entry for 2024, solid name recognition as well.

**** yeah!

I suspect the overlap was too much.

As we see, there were so many state laws that essentially were forgotten about as RvW was law of the land. Now that it's gone, States are dealing with those laws. Even in blue states, i'm sure we'll continue to hear about courts rule in a "Pro-abortion" way as while they may not agree with it, it's a valid state law and they uphold it. In Michigan, Whitmer and Dems were proactive to clean up some old abortion laws before it even got to that point. In short, I think this issue gets worse for the GOP without any outside interference. Hopefully Dems stomp on it on top of that. Somewhat related, I just learned abortion is going to be on the ballot in Florida. I wonder if that alone is enough to flip the state. At minimum, I suspect Trump will have to spend a lot of money, which he doesn't have, to retain Florida. Can we get legal weed on the ballot there too?

Honestly I think Trump understands the political aspect of this issue better then most in the GOP. It's the one issue that I think he would love to completely flip the script and be pro-abortion on. In true populist form, he see's it as a losing issue and wants to be on the winning side of it. It's not like he has any personal convictions over it. Regardless if he continues to try and soften his public stance on abortion, the counter should just to continue pointing at SCOTUS and remind everyone of his role there.

It is a major difference between the two scenarios though. People that have a history of violence provoked the altercation and witness and video evidence backed it up. Rittenhouse's first instinct was not to stand his ground or act like a tough guy with a gun that people needed to back down from, when the provocation started, he attempted to flee, both times.