Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Welcome to A Post-America World, Israel

78 Comments

John Kerry just made himself and the USA completely irrelevant. It will remain so until we have a new administration:

To the “horror” of the Israeli ministers, the Kerry proposal accepted Hamas’s demands for the opening of border crossings into Gaza — where Israel and Egypt fear the import of weaponry; the construction of a seaport; and the creation of a post-conflict funding channel for Hamas from Qatar and other countries, according to the sources. The proposal, meanwhile, did not even provide for Israel to continue demolishing the Hamas network of “terror tunnels” dug under the Israeli border.

This is absolutely insane.

Note: Hamas’s charter is an ongoing declaration of war against Israel. Destroying Israel is not just its goal, but its sole reason for existence.

78 thoughts on “Welcome to A Post-America World, Israel”

  1. You think anyone in a high level position in this state department actually knows what the charter of Hamas is? You think they’ve even read the wikipedia entry on Hamas? Good fucking luck. These idiots are a bunch of dullards who would probably fail a basic geography quiz without the help of their aides.

    1. They probably know, but blow it off with choruses of “…but that’s just for local consumption; the Ambassador has assured me that he’s much more reasonable…”.
      Never underestimate the ability of the average diploclown to cooperate in his own hoodwinking, and the leftist ones most of all.

  2. Post-America? I don’t think so! I recommend this fascinating interview:

    ‘When they become PM, they realize how utterly dependent Israel is on the US’ | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/when-they-become-pm-they-realize-how-utterly-dependent-israel-is-on-the-us/

    The key quote:

    “And what is it that the Likud leader didn’t know 20 years ago, that he does know as prime minister today? That only when you make it to the Prime Minister’s Office, says Haber, do you understand the extent to which Israel “is dependent on America. For absolutely everything — in the realms of diplomacy, security, even economically… Slowly your tone changes, because you understand that without the spare parts [from the US], your entire air force is grounded. And when you have no air force you have no defenses. You can barely do anything without America. Her diplomatic support, defensive support, economic support. We are in America’s little pocket.”

  3. This is what happens when you put a Marxist traitor in the White House. Even if this wasn’t the case, these idiots don’t understand that if you throw too many people under the bus, there may come a time when there will be nobody there to help you when somebody else tries to throw YOU under the bus!

  4. The Times of Israel has continued coverage of Kerry’s proposal. The opprobrium showered down on Kerry has led me a (rather unoriginal) hypothesis: it is a game of good cop, bad cop.

      1. The US comes to Hamas (via Qatar, and Turkey, who we will talk to , and who we actually care about having a mutually beneficial relationship with) and listen to their demands. We come up with a proposal which takes their demands into account. Israel says “absolutely not” and “America is throwing us under the bus!”. Now America is in the good cop position, and can help the parties reach a mutually agreeable solution. This scheme works if America knows what the Israelis really will settle for. I’d say the good cop, bad cop routine is way too obvious, but hey, you guys don’t believe it, so maybe it is actually a deception that will work!

        1. Note that at no time does America actually throw Israel under the bus. Kerry made a proposal and Israel said no. The US will not penalize Israel in any way for saying no.

        2. When the proposal that takes Hamas’s demands into account includes Israel stop defending itself from rocket attacks, how is that reasonable? Racist.

          3. You have reading comprehension issues. I don’t support the proposal’s contents. I suggested that the American proposal is a diplomatic game of deception being played with Turkey and Qatar.

            What I support (once again): I believe that Israel must have a free hand to stop Palestinian terrorists. Currently, Israel has a free hand to attack Hezbollah, because Hezbollah operates in the independent country of Lebanon. The world agrees that all countries have the right to stop attacks from neighboring countries. The problem with Gaza and the West Bank is that they are Israeli-controlled territory in which the citizens are not free. Contrary to what some folks have posted here, Gaza wasn’t free after the unilateral Israeli pullout (although it certainly had increased opportunities for prosperity and peace which Hamas squandered and then some). As long as Palestinians have the legal status of an occupied people, Israel ends up facing charges like “apartheid” and so on. I believe that the West Bank and Gaza Strip should be treated as Southern Lebanon was – they should be set free. It is a near-certainty that Israel would then face attack, just as Israel faced attack from Lebanon’s Hezbollah after the Israeli pull-out there, but Israel would now have a free hand to attack back. The border with Lebanon has been quiet, and there are competing theories for why. I mentioned the theory that Hezbollah is simply busy supporting Assad, but I favor the theory that Hezbollah has refrained from attacking Israel in order to retain political support from Lebanese villagers who would suffer terribly if Israel would provoked into attacking once again. I hope that similar pressures would be applied to whoever ends up ruling the Palestinians (and Chris Gerrib, below, appears to like that idea too), but if not, so be it: they’ll bring on an Israeli attack, and Israel will be much less constrained than it is now.

            One more thing: even if I supported the contents of Kerry’s proposal, I find the charge of racism to be laughable. There is nothing racist about it. But again, I think the proposal is a gambit, not a serious proposal.

        3. There’s a simpler explanation. Barack Obama and John Kerry are reflexively anti-Israel because that has become the position of the Democratic Party ever since it was taken over by New Leftist elements in 1972. These two have spent so much time in their self-referential little bubble of conventional wisdom progressive politics, they are no longer really aware that an outside world actually exists. The traditional anti-semitism of both the American black community and of old-money Boston Brahmins, respectively, is, doubtless, a factor as well.

          If Kerry was looking for something to take to Israel, he didn’t have to go with the fringy stooging for Hamas represented by the Turkey-Qatar recapitulation of Hamas demands and talking points. He could, instead, have lent support to the much less preposterous notions of the Arab League. No friends of Israel, they, but also no friends of Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot that is also pledged to the destruction of nearly every extant Arab regime in the Middle East as well as of Israel.

          What Kerry did was standard-issue Obama administration stupid, but it was hardly accidental. Everything these people do is deliberate. It’s just that they so badly misunderstand the real world that they are always blindsided by the inevitable “unintended” consequences of their actions.

  5. Kerry once again proves that he’s, at best, utterly ignorant. Hamas is a terrorist organization, so the goal of any sane policy would be eradicating them.

    I’m very puzzled by one thing about the current fighting; why can’t Israel use fire finder radar to locate the launch point of the Hamas rockets whenever they fire, and reply with a fast artillery strike on those coordinates? Done quickly, it’d have a good chance of taking out the missile crews. I can’t see any technical reason why the Israelis can’t do this, so why don’t they? It’d be effective as part of the current operation, but it’s also something they could do whenever a missile was fired. (all of Gaza is within easy arty range). I know they can do this (fire-finder radar launch point detection) with artillery shells, so I’d have thought that it could be done even easier with the Quasam rockets. But the fact that they aren’t doing it seems to indicate that I’m wrong somewhere.

    2. Israel is using every means at their disposal to detect the launch sites. Radar, drones, helicopters, etc. are being used. There are some problems with your idea, though.

      1. Hamas will deliberately launch their attacks from civilian areas so that when Israel responds, many civilians will be hurt or killed. It’s a successful part of their propaganda strategy. It’ll continue to be successful so long as the bleeding hearts fall for it and as long as the Palestinians hate Israel more than they love their own children. So long as they blame Israel for the civilian deaths instead of blaming Hamas, there will be no end to the attacks.

      2. It’s easy to set up the rockets and use a timer to launch them later. This has been a common tactic in Afghanistan for quite a while.

    3. There’s also the physics involved. Mortar and artillery rounds rise and fall on nice predictable ballistic trajectories. Homemade barrage rockets, though, tend to be pretty wobbly in flight. Backtracking them is not a straightforward mathematical exercise. Once their fuel is exhausted, they become relatively predictable. That’s why Iron Dome can work as well as it does.

        2. Some of them are factory-made and supplied by Iran, mainly the longer-range ones of which Hamas seems to have limited supplies. Were this not true, a lot more of Israel would be ducking a lot more often; Hamas has never been reluctant to use what it has. Given that Hamas seems to reserve these long-range rounds for occasional use just frequent enough to keep the general level of tension in Israel as high as possible, it is fair to conclude they didn’t have very many to begin with.

          But most Hamas rockets are short-range, home-brew items and near-border areas of Israel is still where most of them fall.

          1. This seems more likely to me:
            The commander of the Iranian Guard said that Iran did not supply Gaza with a Fajr-5 missile but transferred the technology to manufacture it to the Palestinians.[14]
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-5

            I don’t see how these weapons could be smuggled into Gaza from Iran.

          5. The Palestinians don’t have anything more sophisticated that unguided artillery rockets, that includes the Fajr-5, which means it’s something that could be put together in just about any engineering shop, as long as you’ve got the design right.

            I doubt Egypt wouldn’t notice 1500kg rockets moving through it’s ports and across the country to the tunnels Egypt’s been working to close.

            I doubt Iran would go to all the trouble of sending the Palestinians the real thing when, given the plans, they could be build in Gaza.

            If the Iranians were to start smuggling missiles into Gaza to attack Israel, wouldn’t they at least send missiles equipped with a GPS guidance system, and God knows what other more sophisticated weaponry, something to take down helicopters, serious anti-tank weapons, HMG’s?

          6. So Egypt is “working to close” those tunnels between Egypt and Gaza. We’re not talking about hand-dug tunnels five feet down; these are steel reinforced concrete tunnels 70 feet below the surface. They are non-trivial to build in terms of expertise, materials, and equipment.

            So again, what were these tunnels built for? You can’t hand-wave them away.

          7. Wiki:
            In 2013-2014, Egypt’s military has destroyed most of the 1,200 tunnels which were used to smuggle food, weapons and other goods into Gaza

          9. With 1200 tunnels you describe all moving weapons into Gaza, the people there should have about as much weaponry on hand as the US by now.

          13. Many things are “widely covered by the media” that didn’t necessarily actually happen.

            You also rely on sources other than your actually being there when arguing your case, what else can you do, unless everyone here is going to traipse off to Gaza together to see things first hand?

          14. Egypt’s dedication to finding and closing Gazan tunnels has been quite variable over the years. The Mubarak regime tended to be quite laissez-faire until fairy late in its existence. So long as the tunnel traffic was nearly all in-bound to Gaza and consisted of things intended for use against Israel, Mubarak didn’t care.

            Counter to this, during the period prior to 2005, Israeli occupiers were in place along the Gaza-Sinai border so the tunnels were both difficult to covertly dig and keep open once dug. After 2005, and the withdrawal of Israeli occupation troops, the floodgates opened wide. Again, Mubarak was basically okay with this until Hamas elected to make at least some of the tunnel traffic run in the opposite direction for the benefit of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. At that point, Mubarak’s army suddenly got religion about tunnel hunting.

            Then, of course, Mubarak was overthrown by the Brotherhood and Hamas had, in essence, one of their own running Egypt. Tunnel building and traffic ramped up again. Once Morsi was, in his turn, overthrown by the post-Mubarak military, things got tougher for tunnelers once more.

            Now Hamas is busily going through its accumulated inventory of artillery rockets. Will they be able to replenish at some point? Depends largely, I should say, on whether or not Israel withdraws troops at the nominal end of the current hot war in Gaza and establishes another long-term regime of military occupation in Gaza – or even, as I have urged here, annexes it and expels its currently resident Palestinians. Sadly, I suspect the probability of this latter scenario coming to pass asymptotically approaches zero. I think a resumption of full-on occupation looks fairly likely, though.

            With a basically hostile military government in Egypt and Isaelis once again in occupation of Gaza itself, times will get very hard indeed for Hamas tunnelers. It is, really, not of much consequence as to the exact proportion of factory-made-in-Iran artillery rockets Hamas has acquired versus those fabricated from smuggled materials by Gazan cottage industry.

            Smuggling materials is certainly easier than smuggling finished goods. The disparity grows non-linearly with the size of the rockets in question. Getting a fully-fueled 40-foot artillery rocket through a smuggling tunnel is a lot harder than, say, getting a 40-foot length of large-diameter irrigation tubing through the same tunnel. The chemicals required to mix solid rocket fuel, even if landed in bulk in some smuggler’s cove on the Sinai seacoast, can be easily broken down into smaller, handier containers for the trip through the tunnels to Gaza. It is the solid fuel chemicals that constitute the vast majority of the mass requiring double smuggling – first into Sinai, then into Gaza.

            So long as Israel fails to evict them, Palestinians in Gaza will probably be able to maintain at least a trickle of material for building artillery rockets into their hands. Their own seacoast will be hermetically sealed by the Israeli Navy, but Israel is not free to do likewise to the Sinai coastline, though it will do its best to intercept suspicious vessels outside Egyptian territorial waters as they doubtless do now. The tunnels, as noted, will be few in number and limited in capacity.

            So Israel can hugely reduce the scope of future rocket barrages by hugely reducing, in combination with the current regime in Egypt, the capacity of Gazan Palestinians to get materials and fabricate said rockets. But Israel is unlikely to be able to utterly stop-punch covert rocket production. This will be a random and chronic problem for them until, and unless, they annex Gaza and expel its Palestinian population.

  7. There are several fundamental problems with Gaza. One of them is that Gaza can’t economically support itself, because Israel won’t allow the economic development. This means that when some Palestinian goes to Hamas and says “my kid’s hungry and I need work” Hamas says “blame Israel” and “if you help our fighters, we’ll feed you.”

    Kerry’s theory is that if Hamas were to actually have to take responsibility for governing in Gaza, they would have to actually feed and employ their people or be replaced.

    1. So your (or Kerry’s, or both) theory is that despite their stated charter, and their ongoing behavior, Hamas’s real goal is not the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel, but feeding children? And that if Israel was a little nicer to them, all of the kids/adults who have been indoctrinated from birth with hatred of Israel/Jews would suddenly see through their lies?

      Interesting. Completely implausible and foolish, but interesting. But I guess it’s all you have.

      1. Hamas’s real goal is not the killing of Jews and the destruction of Israel, but feeding children? No, but that if Hamas can’t feed children and can’t use Israel as an excuse, then they will be replaced by somebody who can.

        Right now, Hamas can’t feed their people, but can convince the people that the only way things will get better is if Israel is gone. It’s the reverse of Sherman’s March to the Sea in the Civil War. Grant knew that if the families of Confederate solders were suffering and the soldiers staying in Virginia wasn’t helping, the soldiers would desert in mass.

      2. Hamas goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. While Israel has been de facto killing and expelling the Arabs living in Palestine for decades now.

        1. What is Palestine? The West Bank? Gaza? Israel itself?

          21 percent of Israel is comprised of Arabs. I don’t see any extermination going on there. As far as Gaza and the West Bank goes, if the Arabs in those territories quit trying to kill Israelis, maybe there wouldn’t be a reaction from Israel. (But maybe that is what you meant.)

    2. Gaza can’t support itself because it’s using donated concrete to build tunnels. Hamas was too busy killing members of the Palestinian Authority to build any infrastructure.

      If you have any illusions on the goodness of Hamas, just read their charter.

    3. This is simply bollocks. After the 2005 Israeli withdrawal, Palestinians in Gaza failed to pursue “economic development” for two reasons, neither of which had anything to do with what Israel would or wouldn’t “allow.”

      First, the Hamas government in Gaza is, like nearly all governments in the Muslim world, an autocractic kleptocracy. There is no “private sector” to fund investment and reap the profits as these would simply be stolen by the Hamas higher-ups who live like movie stars at everyone else’s expense. Keeping the Palestinian rank and file poor and without recourse to individual entrepreneurial efforts is part of the Hamas regime of autocratic control. Sure they feed their people. But neither very much nor very well. Just well enough to keep them in line. As in Cuba, when the government gets to decide whether or not you eat, your tendency is not to buck the government.

      This is made easier in Gaza than it might be in many other places because Arabs have a strong tribal tradition in which the tribal chieftain is the absolute power and source of all material blessings. “Making it on your own” in the Western sense is not something that has any great resonance in Arab culture. You get ahead by either being the head guy already, or supplanting the guy who is. The energy and initiative people in other cultures, particularly those in the developed West, put into entrepreneurship, the normative Arab puts into scheming and betrayal to secure advancement in the merciless hierarchy of tribal barbarism.

      Second, there is the ideological factor that, besides obeisance to confiscatory cultural tradition, a second way of keeping the rank and file in-line is to give them an Emmanuel Goldstein to hate. In the case of Gazan Palestinians there is an entire nation of literal Emmanuel Goldsteins to fulminate against and curse.

      Even if Israel were to disappear tomorrow, rendering moot the second of these factors, the first would be sufficient to insure the long-term immiseration of the Gaza Palestinians, as indeed it has been for the immiseration of Arabs in general since time immemorial.

  8. One scenario I’ll argue could see progress towards long term peace would be if America and European states took control of the trade access into the Palestinian territories, put people on the ground to (as was done in Iraq in the WMD hunt) to minimize rocket launches, and fostered economic growth in the territories, sort of a Middle East Singapore.

    Obviously agreements with Israel and Palestinian authorities is a prerequisite.

    1. The UN was doing that. Then they were shocked -shocked- to find out that there were stockpiles of rockets stored inside their schools.

      It isn’t an “oops”. On the on hand, you have a group that -knows-, (they have to really believe it) that they can get away with it. On the other hand, the -best- you can say is “Well, maybe they weren’t inspecting as well because they had no personal skin-in-the-game.” If it isn’t corruption -and- active participation.

      Counterplan:
      Evacuate, clear, and seize the northern 200 feet of Gaza.
      Erect a completely new barrier across the south end.
      Declare -that- zone an ‘Imperial Free City’.
      Construct apartments, a major hospital, a school, and an office building.

      I can go in different directions here. But the basic plan is, make something functional but very small.

    2. So, short form: replace Israeli so-called occupation/imperialism with American and European… what to call it?… occupation?… imperialism? You’re, in essence, calling for what amounts to prophylactic neo-colonialism and implicitly admitting that Palestinians, left to their own devices, will always misbehave and thus require continuous adult supervision.

      I’m not saying you’re wrong; in fact, I pretty much agree that you are right. Two or three generations of an imposed external administration on the entire Arab world would likely do wonders for the current phantasmagoria that is Arabic culture. That would be especially true if we could keep them from buggering and murdering their own children until they lose the habit.

      But, let’s face it, the U.S. has no enthusiasm for such an undertaking and it seems unlikely it would ever develop any. Anti-colonialism is baked into our national DNA. Even the Europeans are too much possessed of late-decadence ennui to once more take up their traditional imperialist mantle. We, in the U.S. are happy enough to be hegemons, but, as the Europeans now largely agree, imperialism is too much work.

      The likeliest long-term alternative solution to irredentist aggressive Islam is thermonuclear incineration. We’ll feel bad about it for awhile, but we’ll get over it.

      1. So, short form: replace Israeli so-called occupation/imperialism with American and European… what to call it?… occupation?… imperialism?

        Gee, I dunno, what did they call it when UN weapons inspectors were working in Iraq… occupation?… imperialism?

    3. Forcibly invade Israel AND Palestine, turn Palestine into United Fruit Part Deux, and when the American public get tired of bodybags coming home to please the Eurofetishists… do what?
      Gee, what a bright idea.

      1. Forcibly invade Israel AND Palestine, turn Palestine into United Fruit Part Deux, and when the American public get tired of bodybags coming home to please the Eurofetishists… do what?
        Gee, what a bright idea.

        WTF are you talking about?

        1. “One scenario I’ll argue could see progress towards long term peace would be if America and European states took control of the trade access into the Palestinian territories, put people on the ground to (as was done in Iraq in the WMD hunt) to minimize rocket launches, and fostered economic growth in the territories, sort of a Middle East Singapore.”

          Look familiar? Or are you arguing that what you said isn’t what you said? Or did you forget your “sarc” tags? Or was it a “speako”?

          1. If you’re going to quote me, why not, you know, be honest and not edit the quote to give yourself an opportunity to misrepresent what I said?

            What sort of lower life retard would do that, that think they were clever for doing it?

          2. I cut and pasted exactly what you said. If it’s so blindingly stupid as to be embarrassing, that’s down to you.

            If you want to lie to yourself about what your proposal entails, there’s probably a future for you on MSNBC.

            And calling me names won’t make you feel any better about yourself.

          3. One scenario I’ll argue could see progress towards long term peace would be if America and European states took control of the trade access into the Palestinian territories, put people on the ground to (as was done in Iraq in the WMD hunt) to minimize rocket launches, and fostered economic growth in the territories, sort of a Middle East Singapore.

            Obviously agreements with Israel and Palestinian authorities is a prerequisite.

            “I cut and pasted exactly what you said.”

            Liar.

          5. Honestly, if one is going to be as pedantic as to claim that a direct quote isn’t *exactly* what one said because it wasn’t a full quote, or claim that since the definition of the word “edit” also includes “prepare… by condensing” and therefore a partial quote is technically “an edit”, then it’s not even worth having a conversation any more.

          6. The final sentence of my comment was: “Obviously agreements with Israel and Palestinian authorities is a prerequisite.”

            DaveP. Ignored that to claim my comment amounted to:

            “Forcibly invade Israel AND Palestine . . . ”

            He then subsequently omitted that important sentence to argue that his interpretation of my comment was reasonable.

            He was being a retard and blatently dishonest.

          7. As it would place their security and future survival largely in the hands of others, neither Israel nor the Palestinians would ever agree to such a thing and the completeness of Andrew’s quoted text is, therefore a moot point.

            As for part of what Dave P. did quote, Gaza is surpassingly unlikely ever to be another Singapore for the good and thoroughly sufficient reason that Palestinians are culturally nothing at all like the Chinese. It would be easier to turn France into a monkey-copy of the United States.

            That Andrew thinks otherwise is simply one more index of his thoroughgoing disconnect from the realities of the world. But then that was already pretty evident as he consistently sees Israel as the bad guy in all of this and the Palestinians as innocent and “oppressed.”.

  9. The commander of the Iranian Guard said that Iran did not supply Gaza with a Fajr-5 missile but transferred the technology to manufacture it to the Palestinians.

    Well, we we should always believe Iran, then shouldn’t we?

    And if that is the case, their pronouncement that Israel should be destroyed should also be believed, too.

    1. To you “This seems more likely to me” is the same as “we should always believe”?

      1. “This seems more likely to me”, implies that you believe what they say. In fact, anyone who reads that will assume that you believe what they say.

        In fact, it seems likely to me that when Iran says it wants to kill Jews, it probably means that they want to kill Jews.

        You have a difficulty getting your point across to people here. Either we’re all illiterate or you have a communication problem.

        1. “This seems more likely to me”, implies that you believe what they say.

          Nonsense.

          You have a difficulty getting your point across to people here. Either we’re all illiterate or you have a communication problem.

          I’m putting forward a view point that is at odds with what a lot of people here believe, and want to believe.

          1. I’m putting forward a view point that is at odds with what a lot of people here believe, and want to believe.

            Yes. That is plainly evident. Our eagerness or reluctance to believe is not really what is at issue, though. Rather, the issue is what are the actual facts of the situation? We look at things and see reality. You look at everything through the kaleidoscope of your Bizarro World Leftist ideology. For you, perceived “reality” really is a matter of what you “want to believe.”

          2. You look at everything through the kaleidoscope of your Bizarro World Leftist ideology.

            Dick, I’d be ever so grateful to you if you could give us your definition of “Leftist ideology”

            Thanks.

          3. Dick, I’d be ever so grateful to you if you could give us your definition of “Leftist ideology”

            That would be the idea that the state – run by the righteous intellectuals, of course – should run everything for the benefit of all. The ideal Leftist world would be a “hall pass nation” in which virtually every potential action by a subject citizen would require the getting of permission from some organ of the state first. I don’t remember the name of the libertarian who first said this, but it sums up the Leftist mindset wonderfully – “There are some people who are just congenitally suspicious of any human interaction that occurs unmediated by bureaucracy.”

            On the basis of your postings on a newer thread (Support for Hamas) in this forum, however, you seem to style yourself a libertarian rather than a leftist. See my explanation there of my long-ago decision to abandon doctrinaire libertarianism as I had earlier abandoned my naive teenager leftism. As noted in my comment there, a significant fraction of libertarians come to that philosophy from leftism without seeing any need to abandon their reflexive anti-Americanism or their affection for various malodorous “underdog” groups worldwide who are regarded as axiomatic good guys because they are neither white nor Western.

      2. This seems more likely to me, leftists would rather make a rich person give money to a poor person than give actual charity themselves.

        Tell me you didn’t get upset after reading that.

        1. This seems more likely to me, leftists would rather make a rich person give money to a poor person than give actual charity themselves.

          Congratulations on saying something sensible.

          3. Which one is it?
            You can’t be serious.

            Maybe you are serious?

            Jon, I wasn’t upset about your “This seems more likely to me, leftists would rather make a rich person give money to a poor person than give actual charity themselves.” comment, instead I was moved to congratulate you on finally saying something sensible.

            Whereupon you immediately returned to spouting gibberish.

  10. Whereupon you immediately returned to spouting gibberish.

    I do think you have a problem stating your point.

Comments are closed.