You're saying that it's "evil" for Israel to defend itself by fighting back against Palestinian guns, rocket missiles, and suicide bombs. You're entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but you are coming off rather on the antisemitic side.

You know, it's a funny thing. Millions of dollars of foreign aid pour into the Palestinian territories constantly, and what do they use the aid for? Advancing themselves as a civilization? No, when they get concrete for school building, they use it instead to build fortified tunnels and attack Israel.

There's a fundamental problem there that can't be solved with money and (contrary to your view) can't be solved with land. The Palestinians are generally bad people, that's pretty much how it is. Or at least bad people get democratically elected there, so you do the math. They are not ready to run their own country as anything other than a terrorist state, and need to continue to be dealt with harshly for the foreseeable future.

[citation needed]

The USA has been an ally of Israel, but I am really skeptical of the above claim.

Self defense is not terrorism. A war of self defense will be ugly and when you look at individual events, there will be some things that are not fair. However, Israel is 100% right to fight the PLO and Hamas and kill Palestinian terrorists whenever they have opportunity. When the terrorists hide in civilian houses, they are right to bulldoze the houses. Etc.

I hear what you're saying, and to some extent when push comes to shove, Israel has to be responsible for its own safety, and has of course survived to this point due in large part to its own wits and initiative.

However, even if we leave Iran alone, they won't leave us alone. To Iran's rulers, Israel is the "Little Satan". Guess who the "Great Satan" is?

Thank you for your service. I think I basically agree with what you wrote, however I also agree with what I wrote. Basically, the summary at the top is comically one sided, and even though we hope that wonderful things happen, there are many flies in this ointment.

So... you're saying that the Iranian general didn't say that, or...? If the NewsMax site offends your eyes, here is another article. I don't have any particular affinity for Newsmax, but I have a particular disaffinity for liberals who would apparently rather die than discuss an issue rationally, and try to shut down discussions by ad hominem, including calling their opponents racists, ignorant, etc. That really gets my goat.

Thankfully most entire countries are not officially involved in terrorism, and Iran's export of terrorism around the world takes on smaller local forms: check out this link.

Hehehe, "flamebait". Sorry folks, it's all true, though I wish parts of it were otherwise. Obama can't make treaties with other nations, the Constitution says so. Here's the Iranian general sneering that they'll still destroy Israel. As far as the likelihood that the Iranians will comply with the terms, why in the flying (insert term here) do you think they're hanging onto their underground enrichment facility, as many observers have noted?

Israel didn't ask our permission. And also Israel isn't actively involved in exporting Islamic terrorism around the world.

Couple things you don't seem to be aware of -- Iran is at war with the USA's ally Israel via proxies. Iran's leaders are threatening to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map. It is perfectly rational for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons programs back into the stone age, and they are itching to do so. So yes, there are threats being made to force a "sovereign nation" to bend to the will of other nations, but that's because negotiators are trying to avert a war, or at least not increase the scope of the existing conflict.

Yeah, I guess getting your country nuked by Islamist fanatics can ruin your whole day. Or were you talking about something else?

Other analyses I've read point out that America made significant concessions, and the Iranians basically none at all, and furthermore that the Iranians are very unlikely to comply with the terms.

That compounded with the perplexing arrogance of our current president, who evidently either failed civics 101 or forgot that he isn't entitled to make treaties on behalf of America without the Senate's involvement and approval. And then you have that Iranian military commander sneering that their plans to destroy Israel remain in force. It's such a pathetic situation; why do the editors think people will be fooled by this ridiculous and fawning summary?

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine, and the bakery owner is entitled to theirs. The tricky thing about a conscience is that somebody else can't make that decision for you, it's an individual thing. If the bakery owner really believes as a religious matter that they can't do ABC, then the sledgehammer of the state is pretty much putting them out of the wedding cake business. Personally, I think that's a crying shame.

If the gay couple were more tolerant, they could certainly coexist with the bakery, and everybody would be happy. But no, they want to bully a religious person into being forced to violate their conscience or risk going out of business. So without passing judgment on whether the bakery is factually correct or not, I'd say the gay couple are clearly bullies and jerks.

I'm not sure whether you're lying, or if you just read really biased news sources. Check out this article about the big case that most people have been talking about. The article is from a liberal, gay-friendly perspective but still serves nicely because they are reporting the facts:

http://www.westword.com/restau...

...and please observe that the bakery turned them down immediately when they asked for the cake, NOT sabotaging their event at the last minute.

So stop spreading misinformation about this issue, 'K?

Haha, nice try, but you're attempting to "have your cake and eat it, too" (if you'll pardon the expression).

Feast on this tasty information: cake decoration (in general, but much, much more so for weddings) is a very customized undertaking. The cake typically is supposed to reflect, in an artistic way, things about the couple. A really obvious example is the topper which is placed by the cake decorator. A topper would often have little figurines of the married couple, etc.

So your attempt to equate a wedding cake to a ordinary and unadorned grocery store loaf of bread in terms of its embodied creative expression really "puts the icing on the cake" as far as the lameness of the arguments in this thread so far.