Of course which is which depends on how far back you go...Hardly mentioned by Oliver is the fact that one side is illegally occupying the land of the other side. That's always been - to me - the one fact that settles the matter of who's to blame.
LOL...I can go back to the end of times, there was never an Israel there until 1948. Pretty much the entire world agrees that the "occupied" territories are an illegal occupation!Of course which is which depends on how far back you go...
exactly! just get everyone to agree, and you've solved middle-east peace!Don't get me wrong, I will state my opinion clearly: People lived there. Moses came and some converted. Jesus came and some converted. Mohamed came and some converted. All lived there for centuries. They ALL have a right to live there. Where I argue is this: some of them should not rule without allowing the others to participate (religious discrimination) and only descendants of those people can stake a claim (i.e. a European who converts should not automatically have a "right" to the land).
The one argument I'd make (and this is bordering on politics) is that there has really never been an independent Palestinian state. At least not for a long time anyway. The Israelis, The British, the Ottoman Turks (who ruled for a LONG time), but who really has a claim? Any and all of the above? None of the above? By using that criteria, European ancestors in the Americas are ALL hear illegally as well. So this is not such a cut and dried argument. But as you say, they should at least be able to participate. In some respects, Israelis of Palestinian descent may have more actual democratic rights than Arabs in other countries do. There are Palestinians elected to the Knesset for example.LOL...I can go back to the end of times, there was never an Israel there until 1948. Pretty much the entire world agrees that the "occupied" territories are an illegal occupation!
Don't get me wrong, I will state my opinion clearly: People lived there. Moses came and some converted. Jesus came and some converted. Mohamed came and some converted. All lived there for centuries. They ALL have a right to live there. Where I argue is this: some of them should not rule without allowing the others to participate (religious discrimination) and only descendants of those people can stake a claim (i.e. a European who converts should not automatically have a "right" to the land).
I was thinking the exact same thing as he was talking about it.I'm assuming this was comedic enough for the recent complainers.
The Venus Veil (Official Site): World's First Sexual Wellness Blanket | A discreet and convenient way to improve your sexual health and feel like yourself again.
As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying. They probably have a prepared set of questions and the guest could say something totally off topic and they would just go through their list. I also think many of them are just not that bright, just a "pretty face for TV". Or, of course, their corporate overlords just tell them not to ask any provocative questions. I'm sure it's some of both.Good episode. Topical, yet funny. And a subject that should be of interest to most of us who watch JO (local news).
The Venus Veil was great. That pitchperson did a really good job. It's amazing how much bullcrap the local TV stations will let air. Seriously, how does anyone not question that ad, at some point along the line? (Rhetorical question, I know. Money).
Invented 80 years ago in Germany.![]()
Wasn't too far from:The public comments at the San Francisco meeting had me LOLing for real-especially the dude at the end who, apparently, just comes there to sing![]()
Didn't John say that these "spots" were scripted by the company paying the local channel (that would include the questions asked)?As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying. They probably have a prepared set of questions and the guest could say something totally off topic and they would just go through their list. I also think many of them are just not that bright, just a "pretty face for TV". Or, of course, their corporate overlords just tell them not to ask any provocative questions. I'm sure it's some of both.
It's why I only watch the local news for the weather (as I find them more accurate than watching Weather Channel.)
The point was that this is paid advertising which is why the host isn't questioning the guest. They are being paid to follow the script.As soon as she said that, I am thinking, come on the host HAS to question that! But I get the feeling that so many of these talking heads who do local news don't even listen to what their guests are saying.