waybreadenthusiast

I really don't want to get involved... But I think someone else needs to say this: The original post is indeed ambiguous. It could be interpreted in two ways:

i) making every country safe for jews indicates that they should be going back to "their" country of origin

ii) making every country safe for jews indicates that a new state of israel/palestine is also safe for jews and everyone can just go on and live wherever they please.

Now we have two possible interpretations. The problem being that i) is actually ignorant of historical facts (jews have lived in that region far longer than muslims) and while admittedly being a minority have some right to live in the region. The claim that ashkenazi jews are by and lagre converts has also not a real and (this is even more important) clear historical background. On the other hand ii) might be a fairer interpretation and would actually solve a lot of things but fails in two aspects: 1) It seems not an easy solution and 2) It has the air of being a bit oversimplified. It reminds of a child hearing of war for the first time and reacting with "why can't they just stop and love each other". This sentiment is noble and a nice thought but it's also not based in reality.

Klar ist Schweizerdeutsch keine eigene Sprache... wer behauptet denn sowas abstruses!

Im Gegeteil... es heisst jo au scho im Name Schwyzerdütsch...

Thats 1.66 °C to 8.88 °C in sensible units.

For me the main issue is the time effort and the incompability with other people and my work that work with Microsoft products.

Yeah thanks sherlock... But it's quite a common simplification and understood by almost anyone.

Edit: I'm sorry – after reading my comment again– that came across quite a bit harsher than it was meant.

Just for context: I think crate training is a very US thing to do. I've never heard of it before i saw it on social media. I didn't crate train my dog and i don't know anybody that did this. When i first heard of it, it seemed cruel to me, but again i think it's just a cultural thing.

could've

I don't know anyone that works in a charity and i suppose that's the case for most people.

Danke... peinlich peinlich

Das Michmich ist leider unsinnig; traditionell vergleicht es gut oder funktionierende Produkte mit fehlerhaften oder unpassenden Produkten. Im vorliegenden Fall ist das evozierte Produkt ein Grinch (da es in der deutschen Übersetzung von Dr. Seuss auch als Grinch bezeichnet wird, verzichte ich auf eine Eindeutschung), also eine mythische Figur, die sich daran labt, Kindern Angst zu bereiten. Nun ist das zweite Bild ein Bild von Trumpf: Dieser jagt Kindern deutlich mehr Angst ein als dies ein stänkerndes grünes Wesen je könnte. Folglich ist die Stossrichtung des Michmich vollständig invert und dementsprechend falsch.

Okay