100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Avoiding "Catfish" Posters
|
|
Video Chat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
President Carter speaks out
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sat 12/01/12 11:08 AM
|
|
Carter has lost any relevance long ago and is only a voice of contention and obstruction. Sad. He is the only US Pres I can think of who got more and more extreme, hateful, and irrelevant year by year after he lost office.  Jimmy Carter... A true statesman, humanitarian, Peace negotiator and a man of the world who tells it like it is!  In April 2008, the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat reported that Carter met with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal on his visit to Syria. The Carter Center initially did not confirm nor deny the story. The US State Department considers Hamas a terrorist organization.[86] Within this Mid-East trip, Carter also laid a wreath on the grave of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah on April 14, 2008.[87] Carter said on April 23 that neither Condoleezza Rice nor anyone else in the State Department had warned him against meeting with Hamas leaders during his trip.[88] Carter spoke to Mashaal on several matters, including "formulas for prisoner exchange to obtain the release of Corporal Shalit."[89] In December 2008, Carter visited Damascus again, where he met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and the Hamas leadership. Carter visited with three officials from Hamas who have been living at the International Red Cross office in Jerusalem since July 2010. Israel believes that these three Hamas legislators had a role in the 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and has a deportation order set for them.[93] In August 2006, Carter criticized Blair for being "subservient" to the Bush administration and accused Blair of giving unquestioning support to Bush's Iraq policies.[112] In a May 2007 interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he said, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," when it comes to foreign affairs.[113][114] Two days after the quote was published, Carter told NBC's Today that the "worst in history" comment was "careless or misinterpreted," and that he "wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history, but just with President Nixon's."[115] The day after the "worst in history" comment was published, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that Carter had become "increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."[116]  Meanwhile the Carter administration is surely far from one of the finest to grace Washington.... In April 2008, the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat reported that Carter met with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal on his visit to Syria. No kidding? A peace negotiator meeting with the other side? Hahahaha! Carter also laid a wreath on the grave of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah on April 14, 2008 Respect for the dead.... and respect for someone he has met on many occasions  Carter spoke to Mashaal on several matters, including "formulas for prisoner exchange to obtain the release of Corporal Shalit."[89] YOU Sir, should be thanking Carter for Shalit's release!   In August 2006, Carter criticized Blair for being "subservient" to the Bush administration and accused Blair of giving unquestioning support to Bush's Iraq policies. Uh... Cause Blair was? and it was just as "unquestioning" as US support for Israel  Slow! You have a foot on a banana peel and the other in the coffin when it comes to Carter... Way to go! Your feverish search on Carter's faut pas... has shined a bright light on your intentions here... Smear Carter???? Even for a Canadian, It's unacceptable! It is truly a shame. Carter has disgraced himself terribly. Carter has become politcally a pariah due to his disrespect for current administration's foreign policy work, his close relationship to war criminals like Hamas and the hilarious book which tries to compare Israel to apartheid S Africa. Carter lost all credibility long ago along with his relevance. It is a blot on the Presidency as well as personally shameful. I kind of feel sorry for him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=191760 Does the PA fulfill the criteria for an independent state? By DAN IZENBERG LAST UPDATED: 10/18/2010 02:06 Analysis: Nothing in int’l law prevents PA from declaring independence, but it is unclear whether other countries would recognize sovereignty. According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which is now part of customary law and therefore binding on all countries, a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter into relationships with other states. Furthermore, the convention states that “the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by other states.” RELATED: Palestinians may ask UN to recognize state in '67 borders Abbas: What Israel calls itself is none of our business Thus, there is nothing in international law to prevent the Palestinian Authority from unilaterally declaring itself an independent state. The question is whether other states will recognize it as such. In theory, states will only recognize a Palestinian state if it fulfills the criteria set down in the Montevideo Convention. According to Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN and current head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, states will, at least in theory, have difficulty recognizing a Palestinian state because it does not meet key criteria of the convention. For example, the Palestinians themselves are in disagreement over what the territory of Palestine should be. Palestinian leaders have mentioned many possibilities, including the 1947 partition plan dividing the Land of Israel into a Jewish and an Arab state, the 1949 armistice lines at the end of the War of Independence, and others. Secondly, the PA does not effectively govern many of the Palestinian parts of the West Bank because according to the Oslo Accords, it shares many responsibilities with Israel. Furthermore, it has no control over Gaza. Another problem is that according to the Oslo Accords, an international agreement that is still binding, the Palestinian Authority is prohibited from conducting its own foreign policy. Be that as it may, the more than 200 sovereign states of the world will largely decide whether or not to recognize a Palestinian state on the basis of their individual national interests and ideological outlook. Israel will not be able to do much, if anything, to prevent other states from recognizing a Palestinian state. Gold told The Jerusalem Post that the Palestinians have another option, at least in theory. The Security Council is the UN organ that admits states to the organization. The council could pass a resolution declaring that a Palestinian state exists and that member states of the UN should recognize it on a bilateral basis. The chances of this happening, however, are questionable, since each of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the US, Britain, France, Russia and China, have veto power over all resolutions presented to the body. Russia and China might be concerned with the precedent the Palestinian move would have for Chechnya or Tibet. For that reason, neither recognized Kosovo in 2008. The resolutions of the UN General Assembly, a body that is overwhelmingly friendly to the Palestinian Authority, are nonbinding and have less impact. However, such a move might prepare the groundwork for the presentation of a similar resolution in the Security Council. According to Gold, the biggest problem facing the PA in unilaterally declaring an independent state is the commitment it made in the 1995 Interim Agreement, Article 31, Paragraph 7, which says, “Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. Yep. Oslo was over really a long time ago with the Intifada attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Israel isn’t the obstacle to Middle East peace Nov 29, 2012 10:45 PM EST The Washington Post Published: November 29 In his Nov. 22 op-ed column, “Why Israel reigns supreme,” Fareed Zakaria accurately set forth the “realities” of the Middle East: namely, “Israel’s astonishing economic growth, its technological prowess, its military preparedness and its tight relationship with the United States have set it a league apart from its Arab adversaries.” Yet in the next sentence, Mr. Zakaria repeated the oft-stated canard that “[p]eace between the Palestinians will come only when Israel decides that it wants to make peace.” Au contraire. How could anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the Middle East conflict blame Israel for the lack of peace in the region? The fundamental condition of any peace in this region is the acknowledgment by the Palestinians, by word and deed, that Israel, a member of the United Nations, is a sovereign Jewish state with the right of secure defined borders. That is all it would take to have peace. Ever since Israel’s founding in 1948, Arabs have not only refused to recognize the nation but have provoked numerous wars to annihilate it. In his conclusion, Mr. Zakaria ironically and naively pointed to “wise Israeli politicians” in the past, including Ariel Sharon, who took risks “to make that peace.” Indeed, Mr. Sharon was the architect of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. Although a noble (and risky) idea, it brought death and destruction, not the desired peace. H. Alan Young, Harpers Ferry, W.Va. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/israel-isnt-the-obstacle-to-middle-east-peace/2012/11/29/d0fd3538-3820-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_story.html This is a concise and accurate description of the situation. All it takes for peace in the Mideast is for acceptance of Israel and cessation of violent attacks on Israel. Then it is over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They have no defined borders Israel has never defined its borders, so how could Palestine possibly define theirs? They do not have a functional government but rather warring factions and they initiate and support and condone war crime attacks on civilians. The same could be said of the Knesset, but that's democracy for you. Not much of a state. But now they have the word state next to their status at the UN. yup...Statehood was pretty important to Israel too if I recall. It is ridiculous for the UN to declare them a state on the basis of the current situation Why; because Israel didn't like it? 1. It is ridiculous to declare the Palestinians a state with no government, no land and whose main function is to create war crime attacks on Israel. 2. Yes, statehood is important to Israel. They have a real government, real lands and a functional democratic society which respects peaceful neighbors and does not engage in trying to kill innocent people. 3. Parts of the Knesset are not at war with other parts of the Knesset. Terrorists are not part of the Israeli government. Terrorist actions are not condoned in any way by Israel and if any crimes occur they are prosecuted. Not celebrated. 4. Israel has had defined borders. There are also defined borders where the Palestinians are in charge of the governmental affairs. The status of the Israeli borders has been in flux over the years due solely to attacks on Israel from their Arab neighbors who did not respect any of Israel's borders. There has never been a conclusion to the last set of conflicts or agreement on how the Palestinian people will agree to live peacefully alongside Israel. That is why there is no border to the Palestinian entity. Israel insists that any border which arises out of the last series of conflicts be one which is easy to defend on the basis of the many attacks they have endured over the years from their neighbors on the basis of religious hatred. Israel insists that they have confidence building measures and that any state created by the Palestinians recognize Israel's permanent right to exist as a Jewish state. But Palestinians refuse to accept Israel. That's where we stand and no matter what they call it at the UN there can be no resolution to this conflict and no resolution to the nebulous status of the Palestinians until they do in fact accept Israel and agree to peaceful coexistence and recognize Israel's legitimate need for security based on the history of heinous attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sat 12/01/12 10:27 AM
|
|
It's going to get really interesting now! I'll say. Israel seems determined to build yet more illegal settlements in what is now an internationally recognized state (that will probably be signing on to the ICC soon). Think Israel can justify the settlements in court? Except there are no internationally recognized borders. Israel does not answer to the ICC especially if it pursues one sided anti-Israel actions by the ICC will only further delegitimize the ICC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sat 12/01/12 06:31 AM
|
 The Palestinians already had status as an observer entity and now they have status as an observer state. They have no defined borders and refuse to accept the existence of their neighbor. They do not have a functional government but rather warring factions and they initiate and support and condone war crime attacks on civilians. Not much of a state. But now they have the word state next to their status at the UN. It is ridiculous for the UN to declare them a state on the basis of the current situation but there is a lot of ridiculous stuff coming out of the UN which is equally useless. So whatever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Not Interested
|
|
How do you get a guy to stop being interested in you? I once told a guy I was a part of a doomsday call and he still came after me. Are there rules to this? be less hot. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UN General Assembly, an impotent body without any authority, passed a ridiculous and completely illogical resolution that grants observer status to a state that does not even exist – and will never exist unless it reaches an agreement with Israel. Not with the UN. With Israel. Without Israel's consent there is no Palestinian state, regardless of how many countries support it in the General Assembly. If the UN General Assembly is an impotent body without any "authority" then what is the point of it? Get rid of it completely. And why does Palestine require Israel's consent to exist? Why should Israel have a right to exist as a state if they don't want to Palestine to have a right to exist as a state? Fair is fair.  The Israelis formerly accept having a peaceful Palestinian neighbor state. Israel is not opposed to a Palestinian state at all. The Palestinians and other neighboring Arab state are opposed to a peaceful Jewish state of Israel however on religious grounds. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others do NOT accept having a peaceful Jewish state of Israel as a neighbor state no matter what the borders. It is in their charter and they openly talk about their ultimate goal being the elimination of Israel and getting rid of the Jewish presence in Israel when speaking in Arabic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Fri 11/30/12 04:31 PM
|
|
but,WE sure know where this Thread will lead us! Well, sometimes it is definitely about religions for example, there were The Crusades...and The Spanish Inquisition, The Islamic conquest of Persia...not all conflicts are about religion of course...just some. Here watch the following videos and see if that helps clarify the current situation of religiously motivated conflicts. Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West http://youtu.be/AediQLpoGGM Also see "The Third Jihad" and "Iranium" - these documentaries are serious and important to watch - there is a real threat and a very real danger. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Op-ed: General Assembly granted non-member observer status to state that doesn’t exist
Noah Klieger Published: 11.30.12, 14:13 / Israel Opinion http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4313820,00.html[/ur] What's all the fuss about? There is no need to panic. So the UN recognized the West Bank as a non-member observer state. Big deal. Does this status give (half of) the Palestinians a state? Of course not. Does it grant them financial independence? Don't make us laugh. So what actually happened here? The UN General Assembly, an impotent body without any authority, passed a ridiculous and completely illogical resolution that grants observer status to a state that does not even exist – and will never exist unless it reaches an agreement with Israel. Not with the UN. With Israel. Without Israel's consent there is no Palestinian state, regardless of how many countries support it in the General Assembly. The General Assembly will solve nothing, just as it hasn’t solved anything else in the past. Syria is a good example. What did UN chief Ban-Ki-moon and his envoys achieve there? Nothing. Assad simply ignored them, just as Ban's predecessors were ignored when they tried to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, such as Rwanda and Sudan. What's all the fuss about? There is no need to panic. So the UN recognized the West Bank as a non-member observer state. Big deal. Does this status give (half of) the Palestinians a state? Of course not. Does it grant them financial independence? Don't make us laugh. So what actually happened here? The UN General Assembly, an impotent body without any authority, passed a ridiculous and completely illogical resolution that grants observer status to a state that does not even exist – and will never exist unless it reaches an agreement with Israel. Not with the UN. With Israel. Without Israel's consent there is no Palestinian state, regardless of how many countries support it in the General Assembly. The General Assembly will solve nothing, just as it hasn’t solved anything else in the past. Syria is a good example. What did UN chief Ban-Ki-moon and his envoys achieve there? Nothing. Assad simply ignored them, just as Ban's predecessors were ignored when they tried to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, such as Rwanda and Sudan. Joseph Stalin's aides once told him that the pope will not approve of the steps he was about to take. The dictator replied: "How many divisions does the pope have?" How many divisions does the UN have? The only ones who can "physically" intervene in any conflict with a fair amount of success are the Americans. This has been proven on numerous occasions. The General Assembly is not only impotent, it is also scandalously one-sided. When Ahmadinejad, the leader of one of the member states, demands to wipe Israel - another member state - off the map, the representatives of the majority of member states react with either enthusiasm or indifference. No one calls to put the Iranian leader on trial. As for the claims that the Israeli government was "caught off guard," "responded too late" and that it "didn't read the map correctly," let's be honest. Had Israel launched its efforts to block Abbas' initiative "on time," would the outcome of the UN General Assembly's vote have been any different? In an Assembly consisting of 60 Muslim nations and dozens of pro-Arab states – the game was fixed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fatah and the Palestinians have sought unilateral action rather than
to sit down and negotiate an equitable solution to the conflict. Since the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel as a permanent Jewish state, Israel now has no incentive to work with them at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
President Carter speaks out
|
|
Carter has lost any relevance long ago and is only a voice of contention and obstruction. Sad. He is the only US Pres I can think of who got more and more extreme, hateful, and irrelevant year by year after he lost office. Jimmy Carter... A true statesman, humanitarian, Peace negotiator and a man of the world who tells it like it is! In April 2008, the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat reported that Carter met with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal on his visit to Syria. The Carter Center initially did not confirm nor deny the story. The US State Department considers Hamas a terrorist organization.[86] Within this Mid-East trip, Carter also laid a wreath on the grave of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah on April 14, 2008.[87] Carter said on April 23 that neither Condoleezza Rice nor anyone else in the State Department had warned him against meeting with Hamas leaders during his trip.[88] Carter spoke to Mashaal on several matters, including "formulas for prisoner exchange to obtain the release of Corporal Shalit."[89] In December 2008, Carter visited Damascus again, where he met with Syrian President Bashar Assad, and the Hamas leadership. Carter visited with three officials from Hamas who have been living at the International Red Cross office in Jerusalem since July 2010. Israel believes that these three Hamas legislators had a role in the 2006 kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and has a deportation order set for them.[93] In August 2006, Carter criticized Blair for being "subservient" to the Bush administration and accused Blair of giving unquestioning support to Bush's Iraq policies.[112] In a May 2007 interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he said, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," when it comes to foreign affairs.[113][114] Two days after the quote was published, Carter told NBC's Today that the "worst in history" comment was "careless or misinterpreted," and that he "wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history, but just with President Nixon's."[115] The day after the "worst in history" comment was published, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that Carter had become "increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."[116] Meanwhile the Carter administration is surely far from one of the finest to grace Washington.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
President Carter speaks out
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Fri 11/30/12 09:15 AM
|
|
Carter has completely lost his one remaining marble. 1. He rails against Israel taking "Palestinian land". Unfortunately, what is or is not "Palestinian land" is exactly what has to be negotiated! Until that happens, there is no way to determine what is Palestinian land and what is not. 2. Carter says that Netanyahu is the first Israeli PM to say that Israel must be considered a Jewish state! Of course it is a Jewish state. That is the whole principle on which it was founded FFS - so the Jews would finally have a safe place where they could live and worship as they see fit. Every Israeli PM and all previous US Presidents have recognized this - everyone except the Arabs repeated attacking and trying to do away with Israel that is...(and Jimmy Carter). Netanyahu is just wisely saying that before Israel accept and work toward a realistic 2-state solution, Israel needs to know that such a state will accept Israel as a permanent Jewish state and not try to attack it or destroy it. The fact that none of the Palestinians are able to agree to this very simple request is extremely revealing and underlies the entire Mideast conflict. It is the reason for the conflict. 3. Carter objects to the Israeli's insistence that they maintain military control of the Jordan river valley from which many attacks have come in repeated attempts to divide and conquer Israel. It is a matter of security Mr. Carter. There is no need for Palestinians to militarily control this area. Why not just accept that? Carter ignores the fact that the Palestinians already govern themselves completely in the W Bank and Gaza yet spend their time launching attacks at Israeli civilians rather than building a peaceful society. Israel is absolutely right to insist on recognition and commitments to security first. The only thing preventing the existence of the Palestinian state in the region they already govern is the Palestinians themselves and the warring factions Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Those who suffer most the average Palestinians. Carter has lost any relevance long ago and is only a voice of contention and obstruction. Sad. He is the only US Pres I can think of who got more and more extreme, hateful, and irrelevant year by year after he lost office. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh FFS...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a pis$er! Ba-da-bump.... Tssssss!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a stupid and pointless gesture. The result was a foregone conclusion.
It is an attempt to make progress toward statehood without recognizing Israel or negotiating a real settlement so it is doomed to fail. Since it was going to happen anyway a number of countries went along with it rather than irritating the block of Islamic states who could retaliate diplomatically and economically. Gaza and the West Bank are already governed by Palestinians. Oh well the Palestinians have always been more interested in denying and attacking Israel rather than advancing their own society and working toward real peace. The real issue is now that they have this useless vote what are they going to actually do to advance peace. Not much I guess since they'd rather stroke themselves at the UN than sit down at the negotiation table. Does it do anything to advance peace? No. So go ahead throw some candy and celebrate - it is a great day for Abbas. Really lifts his stature to elevated heights. What a stroke of genius! Another Palestinian useless propaganda coup!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just in time for Xmas too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well they have run JCP into the ground. Got rigor-mortis.
Didn't have much to do with Gays or Lesbians but it'll be a miracle if they can salvage it now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Tiny-House movement
|
|
I have an 8 x 24 travel trailer where the back folds down into a ramp for my Harley and the front folds down into a hard bottom tent. I have put about 35,000 miles on it including 2-1/2 months traveling all over Alaska. The small home people could learn a lot from the travel trailer people. Fold up couches and tables change the use of a room in an instant (and a few pinched fingers).
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
