Biden Out of Race

[UscGhost]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I've never heard the word used colloquially in this way. It's weird.


That's definitely bribing! 😁

is the word bribe commonly used to describe non illegal activity


Yes, the word "bribe" is very commonly used in everyday, casual language to describe completely legal activities.
While the strict legal definition of bribery involves a criminal act—specifically offering something of value to corruptly influence a public official or a person in a position of trust—native English speakers frequently use the term metaphorically or lightheartedly. [1, 2]
According to Dictionary.com, the word can describe any incentive used to persuade someone. This non-illegal usage generally falls into a few common categories: [1]

1. Parenting and Childcare
Parents frequently use the word "bribe" when offering small rewards to convince their children to cooperate or complete tasks. Because there is no breach of public trust or legal contract, it is entirely legal.

• • "I managed to bribe the kids to clean their rooms by promising them an extra hour of screen time."
  • "We bribed our toddler with a lollipop so he would sit still for his haircut." [1]

2. Training and Pet Behavior
Pet owners regularly use the word to describe using treats or toys to guide an animal's behavior.

• • "I had to bribe the dog with a piece of cheese just to get him into the bathtub."

3. Workplace and Social Favors
In casual social settings or relaxed workplace environments, people use "bribe" as a humorous or exaggerated way to ask for a minor favor.

• • "If I bribe you with a cup of coffee, will you help me move this desk?"
  • "I bribed my coworker with a donut to cover my shift on Friday."

4. Marketing and Incentives
Sometimes companies or individuals offer a legal, transparent inducement to get someone to complete a basic action. This is often referred to in digital marketing as an "ethical bribe."

• • "The website bribed visitors with a 10% discount code just for signing up for their newsletter."

 

[cittykat]

Could the parking lot be a deck underground?

Yes.

In the past high rise and mid rise projects have been required to provide parking, most of which have been multilevel underground parking structures. These can add $50-100k to the per unit cost of a project. Luxury condo developers still build them because buyers still demand parking. But developers pushed through a statewide bill that banned local governments from making such requirements. This is the “red tape” that protected qol. Other California red tape issues include stuff like street lights and mandatory open space. Developers would like to get rid of those too.

California Senate Bill 79 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Account1]

You don't have any trouble attacking others. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I like to see the counter arguments. It’s sad that you and uscghost don’t have any is all. All ya got is complaining about delivery.

 

[Account1]

Lol. Alot of crazy statements in there.

When did i blame conservative? You were the one that seems to think NIMBYs are uniquely liberal for some reasonm. I simply said it includes both.

Earth quake building codes dont make buildings safer in earthquakes???? Lol ok. I wonder if they think the same in Venezuela when the buildings started collapsing in the last earthquake. Thats as dumb as it gets

Taxes are waaaay down the list of the important factors in determining wages

Housing is always a supply and demand problem. Duh

Disagree with what? The idea that the government can fix the problem? Sure they can. Just depends on how and at what cost and who pays for it and if they want to pay for it.

But guess what, you wont be able to cram more people into the rich coastal areas. Isn't any available land to build. Doesnt matter who the governor is

Lol. Alot of crazy statements in there.

When did i blame conservative? You were the one that seems to think NIMBYs are uniquely liberal for some reasonm. I simply said it includes both.

Earth quake building codes dont make buildings safer in earthquakes???? Lol ok. I wonder if they think the same in Venezuela when the buildings started collapsing in the last earthquake. Thats as dumb as it gets

Taxes are waaaay down the list of the important factors in determining wages

Housing is always a supply and demand problem. Duh

Disagree with what? The idea that the government can fix the problem? Sure they can. Just depends on how and at what cost and who pays for it and if they want to pay for it.

But guess what, you wont be able to cram more people into the rich coastal areas. Isn't any available land to build. Doesnt matter who the governor is

This is legitimately like talking with a really stupid AI program that refuses to yield any ground on a clearly demonstrated, well researched issue with liberal policy.

Liberal policy makers, politicians, voters, and academic researchers have admitted this is a problem with liberal cities and states, and yet we find you, the lone holdout for whatever reason.

The NIMBY problem is clearly a bigger issue in liberal cities. You write it off as “well no one likes housing”, but conservative cities and states are able to relax zoning and regulation to allow new builds much faster and cheaper, even within city limits.

You claim that it’s supply and demand, yet say government can help with the problem, implying there’s a policy problem. A flat out contradiction. Then you say “doesn’t matter who is in charge of the government, they won’t be able to fix it”, implying policy is irrelevant.

There’s no land to build on, implying a barrier of practicality, but the problem could be fixed with money. Another contradiction. Which is it? Can the problem be fixed with proper policy or not?

I genuinely wonder if anyone else I’ve seen in the internet is as intransigent as you, without any counter argument or citations or consistency whatsover. You’re right up there with qanon or the “trans women are literally women” crowd

Anyway, I’m done spilling digital ink on this. Thankfully most liberals are much more reasonable than you, otherwise they’d never put forth anyone even approaching electable for me to vote for this cycle.

 

[UscGhost]

This is legitimately like talking with a really stupid AI program that refuses to yield any ground on a clearly demonstrated, well researched issue with liberal policy.

Liberal policy makers, politicians, voters, and academic researchers have admitted this is a problem with liberal cities and states, and yet we find you, the lone holdout for whatever reason.

The NIMBY problem is clearly a bigger issue in liberal cities. You write it off as “well no one likes housing”, but conservative cities and states are able to relax zoning and regulation to allow new builds much faster and cheaper, even within city limits.

You claim that it’s supply and demand, yet say government can help with the problem, implying there’s a policy problem. A flat out contradiction. Then you say “doesn’t matter who is in charge of the government, they won’t be able to fix it”, implying policy is irrelevant.

There’s no land to build on, implying a barrier of practicality, but the problem could be fixed with money. Another contradiction. Which is it? Can the problem be fixed with proper policy or not?

I genuinely wonder if anyone else I’ve seen in the internet is as intransigent as you, without any counter argument or citations or consistency whatsover. You’re right up there with qanon or the “trans women are literally women” crowd

Anyway, I’m done spilling digital ink on this. Thankfully most liberals are much more reasonable than you, otherwise they’d never put forth anyone even approaching electable for me to vote for this cycle.

That's because you directly and purposely avoid the counterpoints when they disprove your notion.

Probably makes it seem easy to you to argue when you dont have to engage with the counters.

I mean, a basic example is when you somehow declare that earthquake building codes dont make homes safer from earthquakes lol

Or that somehow you think that housing can be fixed by somehow cramming more houses and high rises into Malibu.

Or that NIMBYs is somehow a liberal problem that magically doesnt exist in conservative areas, yet somehow you dont realize that most of the rich areas are majority conservative.

California moves to skewer Huntington Beach with series of penalties after huge housing fallout

California regulators say Huntington Beach still must complete required zoning changes despite adopting a new housing plan, putting the coastal city at risk of renewed penalties.

nypost.com

Just one example of many conservative areas fighting against housing initiatives..

 

[skougess]

That's because you directly and purposely avoid the counterpoints when they disprove your notion.

Probably makes it seem easy to you to argue when you dont have to engage with the counters.

I mean, a basic example is when you somehow declare that earthquake building codes dont make homes safer from earthquakes lol

Or that somehow you think that housing can be fixed by somehow cramming more houses and high rises into Malibu.

Or that NIMBYs is somehow a liberal problem that magically doesnt exist in conservative areas, yet somehow you dont realize that most of the rich areas are majority conservative.

California moves to skewer Huntington Beach with series of penalties after huge housing fallout

California regulators say Huntington Beach still must complete required zoning changes despite adopting a new housing plan, putting the coastal city at risk of renewed penalties.

nypost.com

Just one example of many conservative areas fighting against housing initiatives..

That’s kind of how he argues, which is a shame because he brings up interesting points. When I was arguing with him earlier in the thread, he called on me to use experience and heuristics as a “gotcha”. When I exposed myself as an ER doc with extensive experience with the gen public, and what my heuristic conclusions were, he called me misanthropic and judgemental.

It’s honestly best to ignore him, it’s not fun or productive to argue with someone like that and there are plenty on this thread to engage with that aren’t so angry/triggered at baseline.

 

[UscGhost]

That’s kind of how he argues, which is a shame because he brings up interesting points. When I was arguing with him earlier in the thread, he called on me to use experience and heuristics as a “gotcha”. When I exposed myself as an ER doc with extensive experience with the gen public, and what my heuristic conclusions were, he called me misanthropic and judgemental.

It’s honestly best to ignore him, it’s not fun or productive to argue with someone like that and there are plenty on this thread to engage with that aren’t so angry/triggered at baseline.

Yea, i agree

But some of his arguments make no sense. The idea that housing is simply a policy issue and not a land issue is ridiculous

Huntington beach has about 80,000 housing units in total.

How many empty lots for sale right now? About 12-14

Avg price? 3 million

Not sure what magical housing policy will solve that.

 

[skougess]

Yea, i agree

But some of his arguments make no sense. The idea that housing is simply a policy issue and not a land issue is ridiculous

Huntington beach has about 80,000 housing units in total.

How many empty lots for sale right now? About 12-14

Avg price? 3 million

Not sure what magical housing policy will solve that.

Well I agree with you there, I actually stated as much a page or so ago. The practical considerations of California are 90% of what makes it expensive. I’m sure policy could be improved to help it, but California is always going to be 3x as expensive as Texas because of the limitations of building by geography as well as the desirability of the land/climate in general, and the high salaries that are offered in that state (in fields other than medicine. We are kind of backwards to every other industry in that regard.)

I also don’t think high rises solve the issue. No 32 year old who wants to start a family is going to stay in the area because there is an affordable 2 bedroom condo on the 17th floor. They are going to move.

 

[cchoukal]

Yea, i agree

But some of his arguments make no sense. The idea that housing is simply a policy issue and not a land issue is ridiculous

Huntington beach has about 80,000 housing units in total.

How many empty lots for sale right now? About 12-14

Avg price? 3 million

Not sure what magical housing policy will solve that.

To play devil's (Account1's?) advocate, if land-use policy forbade single family homes on those lots, in favor or multi-dwelling, in theory, at least, more homes would be built, increasing supply to begin balancing out against demand, which should lower costs. There are laws in CA at the state level that encourage (force with penalties) municipalities to increase density along transit corridors. The idea being that density there wouldn't impact SFH neighborhoods and would encourage building where people would become less car-dependent. SF even stopped the law requiring new buildings to include at least one parking spot-per-dwelling. Reasonable people can disagree whether that would be effective overall, or whether cities will just pay fines to not meet their mandated housing density goals, but the IDEA seems sound, anyway. Of course, the cities still have to get over local/citizen opposition to individual projects. Those citizens, I suppose, are more likely to be liberal simply by virtue of the fact that they've chosen to live in a city, but I'm not sure that I'd call it a liberal policy issue.

 

[UscGhost]

To play devil's (Account1's?) advocate, if land-use policy forbade single family homes on those lots, in favor or multi-dwelling, in theory, at least, more homes would be built, increasing supply to begin balancing out against demand, which should lower costs. There are laws in CA at the state level that encourage (force with penalties) municipalities to increase density along transit corridors. The idea being that density there wouldn't impact SFH neighborhoods and would encourage building where people would become less car-dependent. SF even stopped the law requiring new buildings to include at least one parking spot-per-dwelling. Reasonable people can disagree whether that would be effective overall, or whether cities will just pay fines to not meet their mandated housing density goals, but the IDEA seems sound, anyway. Of course, the cities still have to get over local/citizen opposition to individual projects. Those citizens, I suppose, are more likely to be liberal simply by virtue of the fact that they've chosen to live in a city, but I'm not sure that I'd call it a liberal policy issue.

Definitely.

The issue is a decades long problem. A historical preference for SFH with large lots doesn't help with future MF needs. Buyers didnt want to buy small lots

Combine that with local resistance to adding additional housing units (more traffic) in already crowded areas is understandable.

Other states can simply just add units on the outskirts or suburban sprawl.

A singular policy wouldn't make buyers want small lots in the 90s.

 

[arkgal]

Trump has a history of election subversion via unorthodox means, that's all my post was suggesting.



Exactly. Your optimism is nice, but premature imo.

It's ok to celebrate a big victory. That doesn't mean the war is over.

 

[rowsdower88]

It's ok to celebrate a big victory. That doesn't mean the war is over.

"Big victory" = maintaining the status quo...

Meh.

 

[rowsdower88]

Tim Miller, former Communications Director for Jeb Bush campaign and now conservative commentator at the Bulwark.

 

[arkgal]

is the word bribe commonly used to describe non illegal activity



Yes, the word "bribe" is very commonly used in everyday, casual language to describe completely legal activities.

While the strict legal definition of bribery involves a criminal act—specifically offering something of value to corruptly influence a public official or a person in a position of trust—native English speakers frequently use the term metaphorically or lightheartedly. [1, 2]

According to Dictionary.com, the word can describe any incentive used to persuade someone. This non-illegal usage generally falls into a few common categories: [1]

Those are all relevant examples. They all have one thing in common - they require an action. It is not passive. Texas having no state income tax is passive. Bribery doesn't fit in this case, even if you are using it in the common vernacular. You never answered my question about whether Washington state is also bribing people to come live there.

I like to see the counter arguments. It’s sad that you and uscghost don’t have any is all. All ya got is complaining about delivery.

There's a difference between arguing a topic and making personal attacks.

This is legitimately like talking with a really stupid AI program that refuses to yield any ground on a clearly demonstrated, well researched issue with liberal policy.

Liberal policy makers, politicians, voters, and academic researchers have admitted this is a problem with liberal cities and states, and yet we find you, the lone holdout for whatever reason.

The NIMBY problem is clearly a bigger issue in liberal cities. You write it off as “well no one likes housing”, but conservative cities and states are able to relax zoning and regulation to allow new builds much faster and cheaper, even within city limits.

You claim that it’s supply and demand, yet say government can help with the problem, implying there’s a policy problem. A flat out contradiction. Then you say “doesn’t matter who is in charge of the government, they won’t be able to fix it”, implying policy is irrelevant.

There’s no land to build on, implying a barrier of practicality, but the problem could be fixed with money. Another contradiction. Which is it? Can the problem be fixed with proper policy or not?

I genuinely wonder if anyone else I’ve seen in the internet is as intransigent as you, without any counter argument or citations or consistency whatsover. You’re right up there with qanon or the “trans women are literally women” crowd

Anyway, I’m done spilling digital ink on this. Thankfully most liberals are much more reasonable than you, otherwise they’d never put forth anyone even approaching electable for me to vote for this cycle.

You make some good points, and there might be some credence to your ideas. But you make personal attacks, fail to address points in counterarguments, and act as if a conservative government magically doesn't have these problems.

 

[Southpaw]

Wonder if people are paying attention to Macklemore and Ed Sheeran fallout. Not that anyone should care what celebrities do or say, but the reality is America is a country run by some very rich, very powerful people. Macklemore will suffer greatly due to speaking for the Palestinian people and against the state of Israel. It seems Kraft will make sure he suffers at least financially, if not in other ways. Sheeran would like to stay apolitical (though he had no problem making videos in support of Ukraine).

I find this is rather interesting, especially in light of the bombshell report that Netanyahu was warned personally by UAE President MBZ that Hamas was planning a major offensive strike weeks before 10/7. Netanyahu didn’t brief his top security chiefs and effectively did nothing.

Not only that, but it was in that report that on the night of the attack the Qatari president reached out to the US saying Hamas would immediately release the hostages. The offer was rebuffed.

This report was by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. There were rumors Netanyahu wanted 10/7 all along so he could defend a genocide on the Palestinians. This idea was rebuffed at least once on this thread by Zionists and maga conservatives.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Wonder if people are paying attention to Macklemore and Ed Sheeran fallout. Not that anyone should care what celebrities do or say, but the reality is America is a country run by some very rich, very powerful people. Macklemore will suffer greatly due to speaking for the Palestinian people and against the state of Israel. It seems Kraft will make sure he suffers at least financially, if not in other ways. Sheeran would like to stay apolitical (though he had no problem making videos in support of Ukraine).

I find this is rather interesting, especially in light of the bombshell report that Netanyahu was warned personally by UAE President MBZ that Hamas was planning a major offensive strike weeks before 10/7. Netanyahu didn’t brief his top security chiefs and effectively did nothing.

Not only that, but it was in that report that on the night of the attack the Qatari president reached out to the US saying Hamas would immediately release the hostages. The offer was rebuffed.

This report was by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. There were rumors Netanyahu wanted 10/7 all along so he could defend a genocide on the Palestinians. This idea was rebuffed at least once on this thread by Zionists and maga conservatives.

uh huh… 9/11 was an inside job too.

 

[pgg]

I’ve lived in the Central Valley. It’s an armpit. I’d rather live in Ohio or Oklahoma and it’s not even close. Living in the Central Valley is all the fun of Arizona weather with the amenities of your local major interstate rest area.

I lived in Hanford for a few years when the Navy stationed me at Lemoore.

To your cultural wasteland description I'll add ... the worst air quality in the nation. Last time I looked the top five cities in the USA with the worst air were all between Bakersfield and Fresno.

Aerosolized feed lot dirt, about four rainy days per year, and temperature inversion layers that keep it there forever ...

 

[skougess]

Wonder if people are paying attention to Macklemore and Ed Sheeran fallout. Not that anyone should care what celebrities do or say, but the reality is America is a country run by some very rich, very powerful people. Macklemore will suffer greatly due to speaking for the Palestinian people and against the state of Israel. It seems Kraft will make sure he suffers at least financially, if not in other ways. Sheeran would like to stay apolitical (though he had no problem making videos in support of Ukraine).

I find this is rather interesting, especially in light of the bombshell report that Netanyahu was warned personally by UAE President MBZ that Hamas was planning a major offensive strike weeks before 10/7. Netanyahu didn’t brief his top security chiefs and effectively did nothing.

Not only that, but it was in that report that on the night of the attack the Qatari president reached out to the US saying Hamas would immediately release the hostages. The offer was rebuffed.

This report was by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. There were rumors Netanyahu wanted 10/7 all along so he could defend a genocide on the Palestinians. This idea was rebuffed at least once on this thread by Zionists and maga conservatives.

My controversial take: Liberals pushing pro-Palestinian propaganda is just as backwards as Conservatives pushing anti-Ukraine propaganda. I don’t really understand what my fellow liberals get out of supporting terrorist regimes. Seems like a bandwagon trend that college students can march for without doing the slightest of investigation.

I also don’t really care that Macklemore has consequences for taking a controversial stand as an entertainer. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[skougess]

I lived in Hanford for a few years when the Navy stationed me at Lemoore.

To your cultural wasteland description I'll add ... the worst air quality in the nation. Last time I looked the top five cities in the USA with the worst air were all between Bakersfield and Fresno.

Aerosolized feed lot dirt, about four rainy days per year, and temperature inversion layers that keep it there forever ...

I can still smell that air, diving down the 5 going from the bay to LA. You never forget it.

 

[UscGhost]

Those are all relevant examples. They all have one thing in common - they require an action. It is not passive. Texas having no state income tax is passive. Bribery doesn't fit in this case, even if you are using it in the common vernacular. You never answered my question about whether Washington state is also bribing people to come live there.



There's a difference between arguing a topic and making personal attacks.


You make some good points, and there might be some credence to your ideas. But you make personal attacks, fail to address points in counterarguments, and act as if a conservative government magically doesn't have these problems.

Tax policy is enacted, put into state law as an active process by state legislatures.

Whether its active or passive is not a determining factor as to whether something is a bribe or an incentive.

Even if the definition of bribe was that it required an active process, it still wouldn't disprove the notion that the term is widely used in common language describe things that are not actually illegal bribes

 

[Southpaw]

uh huh… 9/11 was an inside job too.

What happened to you bro? You used to be middle of the road conservative. Capable of seeing both sides. An honest, thoughtful debater who could see both sides.

Are you a Zionist who believes Israel can do no wrong?

 

[Southpaw]

My controversial take: Liberals pushing pro-Palestinian propaganda is just as backwards as Conservatives pushing anti-Ukraine propaganda. I don’t really understand what my fellow liberals get out of supporting terrorist regimes. Seems like a bandwagon trend that college students can march for without doing the slightest of investigation.

I also don’t really care that Macklemore has consequences for taking a controversial stand as an entertainer. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Interesting to me how people twist and turn to defend loss of human life. I suppose desire for war and extinction of an entire people is something people should just accept. Maybe we deserve whatever great filter is out there that’ll wipe the universe clean of our filthy ways.

Also, please see that supporting people dyIng of starvation and facing extinction, and speaking out against an active genocide, in no way whatsoever is a defense of Hamas or any other terrorist regime. These two things aren’t related.

 

[DocMcCoy]

What happened to you bro? You used to be middle of the road conservative. Capable of seeing both sides. An honest, thoughtful debater who could see both sides.

Are you a Zionist who believes Israel can do no wrong?

That isn’t an argument it’s antisemetic conjecture.

“There were rumors Netanyahu wanted 10/7 all along”. GTFO with that. What credible investigative body or major evidence based outlet has come to that conclusion?

The antisemetic swing half of this country has taken is breathtaking.

There is a lot of conversation to be had about security failures, but one would be remiss not to mention the thousands of potential terrorist attacks Israel has to address every year let alone a terrorist organization so evil that they would have to preemptively consider a paragliding attack across the border targeting a civilian music festival… or hijack civilian airliners to fly into buildings.

Israel did not cause or deserve 10/7. America did not cause or deserve 9/11.

I’d love to go back to the days of thoughtful debate, but that’s not what this is. There was a time we could do that, but we’ve become so polarized it’s literally broken some people so bad they had quit the internet for awhile.

 

[skougess]

Interesting to me how people twist and turn to defend loss of human life. I suppose desire for war and extinction of an entire people is something people should just accept. Maybe we deserve whatever great filter is out there that’ll wipe the universe clean of our filthy ways.

Also, please see that supporting people dyIng of starvation and facing extinction, and speaking out against an active genocide, in no way whatsoever is a defense of Hamas or any other terrorist regime. These two things aren’t related.

I feel bad for the people of Palestine. I support Israel. They are not the aggressor, though a terrorist organization forced their hand to continue an assault. Hamas LOVES the devastation in Palestine more than anyone. It’s good for their cause, that’s why they poked the bear.

Israel is our ally AND in the right here. I feel just awful for the Palestinian people, but I will not get behind the “Palestine is right, and Israel is wrong” bandwagon. It plays right into Hamas’ hands.

Similar to how it’s insane that Ukraine and Zelenskyy gets vilified by Fox News. Ukraine is clearly both in the right, our ally, AND exceedingly useful at tying up Russia with a forever proxy war.

 

[Southpaw]

That isn’t an argument it’s antisemetic conjecture.

“There were rumors Netanyahu wanted 10/7 all along”. GTFO with that. What credible investigative body or major evidence based outlet has come to that conclusion?

The antisemetic swing half of this country has taken is breathtaking.

There is a lot of conversation to be had about security failures, but one would be remiss not to mention the thousands of potential terrorist attacks Israel has to address every year let alone a terrorist organization so evil that they would have to preemptively consider a paragliding attack across the border targeting a civilian music festival… or hijack civilian airliners to fly into buildings.

Israel did not cause or deserve 10/7. America did not cause or deserve 9/11.

I’d love to go back to the days of thoughtful debate, but that’s not what this is. There was a time we could do that, but we’ve become so polarized it’s literally broken some people so bad they had quit the internet for awhile.

Parts of this are reasonable. Israel didn’t deserve 10/7. We didn’t deserve 9/11. Your use of antisemitism is so far off base it’s laughable. Like, actually funny. Because of your use it’ll lose meaning. Plenty of Jewish people have spoken out against this genocide and the state of Israel’s actions. Defined as hatred, prejudice, of discrimination against Jewish people, you are also labeling these actual jewish people antisemites. Utterly disgusting.

My guess is that Netanyahu doesn’t get daily calls from heads of state with credible threats. Honestly his disregard of the threat by not evening briefing his security chiefs smells like hubris and Trumpian action. But you do you.

 

[Southpaw]

I feel bad for the people of Palestine. I support Israel. They are not the aggressor, though a terrorist organization forced their hand to continue an assault. Hamas LOVES the devastation in Palestine more than anyone. It’s good for their cause, that’s why they poked the bear.

Israel is our ally AND in the right here. I feel just awful for the Palestinian people, but I will not get behind the “Palestine is right, and Israel is wrong” bandwagon. It plays right into Hamas’ hands.

Similar to how it’s insane that Ukraine and Zelenskyy gets vilified by Fox News. Ukraine is clearly both in the right, our ally, AND exceedingly useful at tying up Russia with a forever proxy war.

I do not particularly care what Hamas does or doesn’t like. Quit inserting Hamas this or Hamas that when I’m speaking about a people facing genocide.

You should listen to some Mehdi Hasan, or even Piers Morgan (who defended Israel for well over a year). Plenty of zionists have tried debating Mehdi over the last couple years. All have failed. There is no defense for what the state of Israel is doing.

Israel should stand on its own, as we expect of the Palestinian people (not Hamas…). They aren’t some innocent poor little figure here. They aren’t David. They’re Goliath. And as a state they have little debt and offer their citizens free abortions. They don’t need our tax dollars, and I’m tired of the hundreds of thousands I give yearly supporting a genocide. No other way around it. And I’ll vote accordingly. That doesn’t make me antisemitic. It means I want my government to act on behalf of US citizens. Not Israelis.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Parts of this are reasonable. Israel didn’t deserve 10/7. We didn’t deserve 9/11. Your use of antisemitism is so far off base it’s laughable. Like, actually funny. Because of your use it’ll lose meaning. Plenty of Jewish people have spoken out against this genocide and the state of Israel’s actions. Defined as hatred, prejudice, of discrimination against Jewish people, you are also labeling these actual jewish people antisemites. Utterly disgusting.

My guess is that Netanyahu doesn’t get daily calls from heads of state with credible threats. Honestly his disregard of the threat by not evening briefing his security chiefs smells like hubris and Trumpian action. But you do you.

I’m sorry. I like you man. But pointing out the “rich powerful people” in America (Jews) black balling Macklemore (pro-Palestinian sentiment), then the conspiracy segue into Bibi wanting/causing 10/7 is clearly antisemetic. There is a lot of hiding behind “antizionism” and “conflation” but we need to call a spade a spade here.

Macklemore, in “costume” btw…

 

[skougess]

I do not particularly care what Hamas does or doesn’t like. Quit inserting Hamas this or Hamas that when I’m speaking about a people facing genocide.

You should listen to some Mehdi Hasan, or even Piers Morgan (who defended Israel for well over a year). Plenty of zionists have tried debating Mehdi over the last couple years. All have failed. There is no defense for what the state of Israel is doing.

Israel should stand on its own, as we expect of the Palestinian people (not Hamas…). They aren’t some innocent poor little figure here. They aren’t David. They’re Goliath. And as a state they have little debt and offer their citizens free abortions. They don’t need our tax dollars, and I’m tired of the hundreds of thousands I give yearly supporting a genocide. No other way around it. And I’ll vote accordingly. That doesn’t make me antisemitic. It means I want my government to act on behalf of US citizens. Not Israelis.

Well now I don’t disagree that Israel should stand on their own. Agree that they are the Goliath. I still understand why they are doing what they are doing. Hamas is relevant because they are to blame for what’s happened to the Palestinian people. It’s what they WANTED by attacking Israel and taking hostages. It’s not fair to tell Israel they have to sit back and get abused by Hamas who then use their people as a human shield.

 

[Account1]

I do not particularly care what Hamas does or doesn’t like. Quit inserting Hamas this or Hamas that when I’m speaking about a people facing genocide.

You should listen to some Mehdi Hasan, or even Piers Morgan (who defended Israel for well over a year). Plenty of zionists have tried debating Mehdi over the last couple years. All have failed. There is no defense for what the state of Israel is doing.

Israel should stand on its own, as we expect of the Palestinian people (not Hamas…). They aren’t some innocent poor little figure here. They aren’t David. They’re Goliath. And as a state they have little debt and offer their citizens free abortions. They don’t need our tax dollars, and I’m tired of the hundreds of thousands I give yearly supporting a genocide. No other way around it. And I’ll vote accordingly. That doesn’t make me antisemitic. It means I want my government to act on behalf of US citizens. Not Israelis.

Seriously, I think Americans can come to terms with the fact that Israel has no interest in either making peace or finishing the job in Palestine thus ending the war.

I was always in favor of mass firebombing the entirety of the Hamas controlled territory and leaving nothing but a scarred crater until they unconditionally surrendered, the same way as I believe America was morally and practically correct in doing the same to Japan in ww2.

The difference in the two conflicts is one country doesn’t want to do what they have to to end the war, and the other country did.

We should stop funding the limp wristed foreign policy of any country that believes perpetual conflict is what will make them stronger or more righteous. Total war was what was required, and Israel couldn’t muster it.

I’m against all weapons funding for Israel whereas once I supported them. It’s been long enough , but they’re too much of weak stomached losers to let might make right, so screw them.

Palestine Pearl Harbored Israel. Israel took a half measure. Opportunity lost, now make peace. America showed them the way from 1941-45, they didn’t learn the lesson.

Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Southpaw]

I’m sorry. I like you man. But pointing out the “rich powerful people” in America (Jews) black balling Macklemore (pro-Palestinian sentiment), then the conspiracy segue into Bibi wanting/causing 10/7 is clearly antisemetic. There is a lot of hiding behind “antizionism” and “conflation” but we need to call a spade a spade here.

Macklemore, in “costume” btw…
View attachment 424599

Dig deeper. I care about the message quite a bit more than the messenger. If you think you can turn Macklemore into an antisemite and it’ll somehow take away from a Free Palestine, or stop the genocide, message then I disagree. You’ve labeled me an antisemite btw, quite a heavy throw in the online battlefield. 🙄

A quick google search shows he didn’t intend for that to be against Jewish people. It was a quick costume put together to get through a crowd. But hey, Seth Rogen criticized it, so you’ve got that going. And macklemore apologized. If only you gave him the benefit of the doubt as you’ve done Bibi probably a billion times.

I stand by you calling anyone critical of the government of Israel, including many, many jewish people, antisemites.

 

[Southpaw]

Well now I don’t disagree that Israel should stand on their own. Agree that they are the Goliath. I still understand why they are doing what they are doing. Hamas is relevant because they are to blame for what’s happened to the Palestinian people. It’s what they WANTED by attacking Israel and taking hostages. It’s not fair to tell Israel they have to sit back and get abused by Hamas who then use their people as a human shield.

I guess until the end of time, or until the last Palestinian is exterminated and Bibi/jared can develop that coastline, we can ‘understand what they are doing’.

If you believe Hamas is to blame for what is happening, TODAY, you honestly need to read more and listen more to some educated voices.

did Israel have a right to defend itself? Yes. Does that give them a right, until the end of time, to exterminate a people. No.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Dig deeper. I care about the message quite a bit more than the messenger. If you think you can turn Macklemore into an antisemite and it’ll somehow take away from a Free Palestine, or stop the genocide, message then I disagree. You’ve labeled me an antisemite btw, quite a heavy throw in the online battlefield. 🙄

Your initial comment was antisemetic. Doesn’t make you an antisemite, but you said what you said…

A quick google search shows he didn’t intend for that to be against Jewish people. It was a quick costume put together to get through a crowd. But hey, Seth Rogen criticized it, so you’ve got that going. And macklemore apologized. If only you gave him the benefit of the doubt as you’ve done Bibi probably a billion times.

I’m sure you believe that… it illustrates a decade plus slew of questionable moves this guy has made and substantiates the reason why major venues were refusing to let him perform. It isn’t a rich and powerful Jewish cabal trying to punish him financially and “in other ways” for no reason.

I stand by you calling anyone critical of the government of Israel, including many, many jewish people, antisemites.

“I’m just being critical of the government of Israel!” Reread your initial post and try to defend that statement.

 

[Southpaw]

Wonder if people are paying attention to Macklemore and Ed Sheeran fallout. Not that anyone should care what celebrities do or say, but the reality is America is a country run by some very rich, very powerful people. Macklemore will suffer greatly due to speaking for the Palestinian people and against the state of Israel. It seems Kraft will make sure he suffers at least financially, if not in other ways. Sheeran would like to stay apolitical (though he had no problem making videos in support of Ukraine).

I find this is rather interesting, especially in light of the bombshell report that Netanyahu was warned personally by UAE President MBZ that Hamas was planning a major offensive strike weeks before 10/7. Netanyahu didn’t brief his top security chiefs and effectively did nothing.

Not only that, but it was in that report that on the night of the attack the Qatari president reached out to the US saying Hamas would immediately release the hostages. The offer was rebuffed.

This report was by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. There were rumors Netanyahu wanted 10/7 all along so he could defend a genocide on the Palestinians. This idea was rebuffed at least once on this thread by Zionists and maga conservatives.

@DocMcCoy here’s my original statement. I stand by it. Nothing here is antisemitic. One can be against Netanyahu and not be antisemitic. One can be against the GOVERNMENT of Israel and not be antisemitic.

I am fully supportive of all Jewish people as I believe all human beings have a right to live free of oppression and threat of genocide by an opposing government.

If you believe anything I’ve said is antisemitic, and again I’m happy to quote the actual definition if you need it, then realize it says more about you than me.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I guess until the end of time, or until the last Palestinian is exterminated and Bibi/jared can develop that coastline, we can ‘understand what they are doing’.

If you believe Hamas is to blame for what is happening, TODAY, you honestly need to read more and listen more to some educated voices.

did Israel have a right to defend itself? Yes. Does that give them a right, until the end of time, to exterminate a people. No.

I don't necessarily disagree, but Hamas could stop this at any point by, you know, surrendering.

 

[DocMcCoy]

I don't necessarily disagree, but Hamas could stop this at any point by, you know, surrendering.

Ya but there is a reason we don’t make concessions with terrorists. You can’t really negotiate with ideological zealots that openly use terorism as a means to an end. It’s terrible for the people of Palestine, as they are wiling to use their suffering to achieve that end as well.

 

[DocMcCoy]

@DocMcCoy here’s my original statement. I stand by it. Nothing here is antisemitic. One can be against Netanyahu and not be antisemitic. One can be against the GOVERNMENT of Israel and not be antisemitic.

You should stick to criticism of their government then.

I am fully supportive of all Jewish people as I believe all human beings have a right to live free of oppression and threat of genocide by an opposing government.

Amen.

If you believe anything I’ve said is antisemitic, and again I’m happy to quote the actual definition if you need it, then realize it says more about you than me.

I mean maybe if you want to use Hamas’ definition of antisemitism in their 1988 charter? Look at IHRAs or the ADLs definition…

Invoking the rich and powerful people in America and how they are punishing “pro-Palestinian” rhetoric only to segue into an unsubstantiated claim that the Israeli state is responsible for 10/7 is antisemetic man.

 

[arkgal]

You should stick to criticism of their government then.



Amen.



I mean maybe if you want to use Hamas’ definition of antisemitism in their 1988 charter? Look at IHRAs or the ADLs definition…

Invoking the rich and powerful people in America and how they are punishing “pro-Palestinian” rhetoric only to segue into an unsubstantiated claim that the Israeli state is responsible for 10/7 is antisemetic man.

His statement was not anti-semantic.

 

[Southpaw]

You should stick to criticism of their government then.



Amen.



I mean maybe if you want to use Hamas’ definition of antisemitism in their 1988 charter? Look at IHRAs or the ADLs definition…

Invoking the rich and powerful people in America and how they are punishing “pro-Palestinian” rhetoric only to segue into an unsubstantiated claim that the Israeli state is responsible for 10/7 is antisemetic man.

Then Haaretz, the oldest Israeli newspaper, and many, many jewish people are, by your definition, antisemitic.

Interesting how every single time someone speaks to defend Palestinians the response is ‘Hamas this or Hamas that’. Those are Israeli bombs. Well, actually maybe they’re US.

 

[Southpaw]

I don't necessarily disagree, but Hamas could stop this at any point by, you know, surrendering.

If you believed Israel wanted peace, perhaps.

 

[DocMcCoy]

His statement was not anti-semantic.

lol. Actually, in a way it was that too.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Then Haaretz, the oldest Israeli newspaper, and many, many jewish people are, by your definition, antisemitic.

If the Haaretz, or any other Jews, write an article about the rich and powerful American elites cancelling Palestinian rhetoric and transition in the same article to a conspiratorial theory that Bibi planned 10/7, then yes. That would be my definition of antisemitism.

Interesting how every single time someone speaks to defend Palestinians the response is ‘Hamas this or Hamas that’. Those are Israeli bombs. Well, actually maybe they’re US.

You want to keep retreating to this idea that’s it’s only about defending Palestine.

We are 500 pages deep, when has any one cheered on the continued violence and destruction towards Gaza?

Why don’t you clarify what you meant by invoking the Macklemore story and the rich and powerful “punishing him” then how that segues into a “theory” that Bibi wanted 10/7 to happen?