As I said, Herzl wasn't explicitly calling for total extermination here, but what he was calling for could only happen via genocide. This is why the Nakba included so many bloody massacres (which, yes, those constitute a genocide).
NoneOfUrBusiness
joined 1 year ago
Can y'all like think for five minutes before you get hate boners when you see the words "million" and "dollars" in a sentence? These are two old people trying to move houses post-Covid in California; worrying about nearly a million dollars being shaved off their retirement is a very reasonable concern. The fact that you don't have this kind of money to retire is because you're being fucked over, not because they're hoarding money.
I mean,
While the Friedmans have done well financially, they're relying on the profits from their future home sale to help fund their retirement. They're concerned that Joel's Social Security checks and Kathryn's pension won't be enough to cover healthcare bills and long-term care as they age.
Add in buying a new house and moving costs and it makes sense why they'd be hesitant. Retirement and housing are expensive.
That was the whole idea of his primary campaign.
"Delete from the constitution" isn't a phrase that should exist, ever.
Can we get context for the "having all its wealth drained" bit?
They claim to teach college level Spanish and French and have research to back that up, but I'm not sure of its accuracy.
According to CUPE AC’s bargaining briefing notes, the average full-time entry-level flight attendant makes $27,000 annually—less than the federal minimum wage, $36,000 per year.
How is that not literally illegal?
The other guy is pretty nuts, but the Russification angle of the Russian invasion pretty clearly falls into the category of genocide.
If the West funded a similar system for Russia, it would be used to defend the military and industrial targets that Ukraine is attempting to strike, not just civilians
Like Israel's Iron Dome does when Yemen or Iran attack?
In addition, the bulk of funding for Iron Dome was given at a time when, while Israel was justifiably criticised for breaches of international law, it was not committing a genocide, and it could be said that it was the better party to support.
How in the hell is the party committing ethnic cleansing, Apartheid and deliberately starving children the "better party to support"? And in the first place, who the hell said anything about supporting Hamas? There's a myriad of options other than supporting Hamas that don't entail supporting an Apartheid Nazi state.
You jest but that's exactly my point. This logic is messed up when it's applied to anyone, so it's messed up when applied to wealthier-than-average-but-not-outrageously-so retirees.