|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Don't forget the burning tire in the background. He is a verified triple weapon of terror according to the IDF.
Such a threat that men in concrete towers have to shoot him with sniper rifles.
|
On May 16 2018 03:23 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. I can't really imagine a situation in which rubber bullets wouldn't get this man to stop. In fact, I bet his rocks wouldn't go far enough to hit people with rubber bullet guns. If he was shot with live rounds, then there's no excuse.
I agree the use of live rounds is excessive;
you do raise an interesting technical question: what is the effective range of rubber bullets? and how does that compare to a sling?
and what's the lethality rate on rubber bullets?
|
On May 16 2018 01:28 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 22:08 Sbrubbles wrote:On May 15 2018 21:42 Rebs wrote:On May 15 2018 21:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 21:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated.
nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is. I have the same attitude towards checkmate when I play chess. My opponents always end up really annoyed and I can't understand why. Sure, I haven't actually checkmated you yet, but I probably will so..... CHECKMATE. Perhaps when describing a situation people should try and stick to descriptions that correspond to reality in the present, not describe it as genocide because if no-one does anything there will eventually be genocide. Its Twitter language. People aren't racist anymore they're nazis. Israel isn't committing war crimes, its GENOCIDE because the word sounds more important, regardless of whether there is actual genocide occurring. Agreed in that Israel is trying to bring the international community to the same conclusion all but proposed here, ethnic cleansing isn't working, it's time for genocide. One problem being the inevitability of genocide is already being used to argue in favor/to justify the ethnic cleansing. I think part of the problem is that 'ethnic cleansing' sounds almost like a good thing, hell it is a good thing to over half the voting public. I just think (as I've argued many times in here) that accurate use of language is important, especially when trying to bring justice out of a situation like this. Israel is committing war crimes, blatantly. They are murdering innocent babies. Sniping civilians who pose no threat, and justice needs to be brought to the table at some point. Its just that when people start on the 'genocide' thing, it gives them an easy out. They can easily argue that there's no genocide, and the more realistic claims of war crimes and murder fall away under their denials. imho people should stick to the facts without the hyperbole. I know what you mean about 'ethnic cleansing'. I've always found this to be an inappropriate use of language anyway because it is an obvious attempt to whitewash a horrible situation with political language. I also agree that what some people are arguing in favor is basically ethnic cleansing. Ok so does this count as genocide + Show Spoiler +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre ? What does your question achieve, besides possibly baiting him into a "gotcha" situation? Either outright state your definition of genocide or outright ask his. It was meant to bait a gotcha situation. Its not abou my definition of genocide, its the UN's definition or at the very least the commision tasked with investigating it along with most of the world, and I am largely inclined to agree with it. Read the link. Show nested quote +On May 15 2018 22:10 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:42 Rebs wrote:On May 15 2018 21:40 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 15 2018 21:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 15 2018 21:23 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 21:14 zlefin wrote:On May 15 2018 11:20 Gahlo wrote:On May 15 2018 10:14 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I don't know when; but I don't need to, as the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, the existence of various native american reservations is an indicator that it's possible for a people to be compressed into an area, cleansed otu of others, while not being completely obliterated.
nor have you provided any decent counter to the point about population numbers. We have the benefit of hindsight to know what happened to the Native Americans. Regardless, not genociding them and performing widespread ethnic cleansing is nothing to pat the country on the back about."Congrats on not being 100% total evil." You have provided no proof that Israel will stop taking more and more land from the Palestinians. We have a repeated loop of a) take land b) kill people who try and fight back, justifying it as defense. Eventually, we'll get to the point where there is nowhere left for the Palestinians left to go in Palestine. From there it's: a) Isreal continues its pattern of behavior and completes the genocide b) decides to stop for... reasons? You need to prove that those reasons or decisions exist. Nothing that I know of does so. Either way, Isreal is a total assbag in this situation and the varying degrees of which is out of whack with the reaction that it gets. the burden of proof remains on you; so I don't need to prove that. My argument was solely about the use of the word genocide, which you did not establish, not whether Israel's behavior is acceptable. Sorry I don't wait for genocide to be complete before calling it out for what it is. I have the same attitude towards checkmate when I play chess. My opponents always end up really annoyed and I can't understand why. Sure, I haven't actually checkmated you yet, but I probably will so..... CHECKMATE. Perhaps when describing a situation people should try and stick to descriptions that correspond to reality in the present, not describe it as genocide because if no-one does anything there will eventually be genocide. Its Twitter language. People aren't racist anymore they're nazis. Israel isn't committing war crimes, its GENOCIDE because the word sounds more important, regardless of whether there is actual genocide occurring. Agreed in that Israel is trying to bring the international community to the same conclusion all but proposed here, ethnic cleansing isn't working, it's time for genocide. One problem being the inevitability of genocide is already being used to argue in favor/to justify the ethnic cleansing. I think part of the problem is that 'ethnic cleansing' sounds almost like a good thing, hell it is a good thing to over half the voting public. I just think (as I've argued many times in here) that accurate use of language is important, especially when trying to bring justice out of a situation like this. Israel is committing war crimes, blatantly. They are murdering innocent babies. Sniping civilians who pose no threat, and justice needs to be brought to the table at some point. Its just that when people start on the 'genocide' thing, it gives them an easy out. They can easily argue that there's no genocide, and the more realistic claims of war crimes and murder fall away under their denials. imho people should stick to the facts without the hyperbole. I know what you mean about 'ethnic cleansing'. I've always found this to be an inappropriate use of language anyway because it is an obvious attempt to whitewash a horrible situation with political language. I also agree that what some people are arguing in favor is basically ethnic cleansing. Ok so does this count as genocide + Show Spoiler +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre ? I'm not too familiar with this case, but genocide is an attempt to wipe out or destroy an entire population, so if that's what happened then yeah. We're talking about the current situation here though, and it just doesn't qualify as a genocide, according to standardized definitions of the word. Talking in those terms only cheapens the daily crimes committed against the Palestinian people imo. If the Israeli government had their way, there would probably be genocide, but I don't think you could say any different about HAMAS. Neither is in a position to deliver on that so its purely hypothetical. The idea of expulsion vis a vis ethnic cleansing would be a thing if a large enough chunk of Palestinians could actually go somewhere, they really cant. So they just keep getting killed. Its systematic, the intent is clearly to destroy, they just slowed it down because doing it as brazenly as Sabira and Shatila was bad PR. Just because the math isnt working out doesnt change what they are doing. Regardless its a rather purposeless argument in semantics in the first place, not that such things are not without merit. But given this situation I dont believe it to be so. Being worried about the improper use of Genocide vs ethnic cleansing is the sort of thing one would argue over when there is nothing else left to dispute. To me that its a point of contention at all at this moment is sad, regardless of how strongly you think it might actually matter. "People is getting killed is Genocide!" "No its not its Ethnic Cleansing.. get your facts straight, this improper usage cheapens your arguments." Is it really that easy to cheapen this sort of thing by disputably labeling it? HAMAS wouldnt exist if Sharon, if Bibi werent doing what they did. And Hamas is incapable of doing something the Israelis are basically doing. Again Hamas has acknowledged the possibility of accepting a foreign state. Power dynamic related motivations aside. That is something they added to their charter. Israel, has done no such thing. If Hamas is indeed an uncontrollable evil then why are the standards being applied differently to Likud ? .
OK I didn't say it cheapens anyone's argument, I said it cheapens the suffering of the Palestinian people, and I believe it does. Its the jump to using the harshest possible language regardless of accuracy that annoys me, because trust me I'm on the same side as you in this and I'd rather not be defending Israel from overblown accusations of genocide. I'd rather be talking about the war crimes they are committing daily.
I know it seems like a pointless argument, or just pedantry, but it isn't because these kind of accusations have real consequences.
Put yourself in the position of someone defending Israel's actions. Would you rather be defending against an accusation of genocide or an accusation of falsely imprisoning and murdering countless Palestinians over the last 15-20 years?
Its easy to defend yourself against an inaccurate accusation.
|
|
|
Very common. Wells Fargo did the same.
|
On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life.
Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed. It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites.
User was temp banned from the USPMT for this post.
|
yes you can certainly drop some of your due process rights in a contract; (or right to sue in court at least, technically i'm no tsure if itwould constitute giving up a "due process" right since it's just changing the process from using one venue to using another, and there are bound to be some rules for when you can contest the arbitration result if it's really out there).
such things are found in most states iirc, maybe all, though the boundaries vary somewhat on what can and can't be covered by them.
and it is somewhat ridiculous, though there are understandable but flawed reasons for them: arbitration is sometimes a lot cheaper than bringing a case to court.
|
On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed. It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites.
Most likely this guy simply wanted to have his basic rights recognized and a normal life. Unfortunately he lived in a violent world full of morally bankrupt people like you
|
On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed. It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites.
Is it your opinion that people should not protest militarized locations?
|
Mandatory arbitration clauses are extremely common in almost every state, though less so in the employment context given the tangle of federal and state laws that govern employer/employee relations. Most of the time, it's a safe bet to align a state's political reputation with its tolerance for stuff like forced arbitration (i.e. California limits that stuff, but Georgia less so).
|
On May 16 2018 03:44 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed. It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites. Most likely this guy simply wanted to have his basic rights recognized and a normal life. Unfortunately he lived in a violent world full of morally bankrupt people like you
Yeah, slinging rocks at Israeli soldiers is definitely what I would expect from a guy who "simply wanted to have his basic rights recognized and a normal life." I have an alternative explanation: he was one of the very large number of Palestinians who hates Israel (and not without good reason) and wants it wiped off the face of the earth.
|
On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed.
This is either a callous disregard for the notion of murder or an uncharacteristic show of empathy for the Palestinians. You're right in a way. I saw an interview earlier this week where some Palestinians said they were 'already dead', so yeah maybe they did want to die, because they have lived their whole lives on the bad end of a sadistic military machine.
On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:
It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites.
It doesn't have to end that way. It depends on whose border it is.
|
On May 16 2018 03:44 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed. It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites. Is it your opinion that people should not protest militarized locations?
If they value their lives and health, it's probably not a good idea to protest at enemy military positions, and an even worse idea to attack them.
|
Unlikely. Waivers of due process rarely prevail. However, it is very easy to discourage litigation by claiming that people waived liability. There are judges in MA who have sanctioned attorneys for putting blanket waivers of liability/due process in contracts.
A lot of these terms of service have drafted with the intent to shoot the moon and see what they can get away with.
|
On May 16 2018 03:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:44 Logo wrote:On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed. It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites. Is it your opinion that people should not protest militarized locations? If they value their lives and health, it's probably not a good idea to protest at enemy military positions, and an even worse idea to attack them.
As my brother put it yesterday “You have to be a real piece of shit to order your men to fire into a crowd of people throwing rocks.” From a guy who had rocks thrown him and his men in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
Can I point out that military units discovered how to protect themselves from rocks thousands of years ago.
|
On May 16 2018 03:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:44 Logo wrote:On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed. It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites. Is it your opinion that people should not protest militarized locations? If they value their lives and health, it's probably not a good idea to protest at enemy military positions, and an even worse idea to attack them.
So what happens when your protest target militarizes to prevent protests?
|
N Korea posturing again. Now they are saying the Trump summit is up in the air. Ofc we know they aren't acting in good faith, but I figured they would wait until after the meeting to start making noise.
|
On May 16 2018 03:44 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2018 03:41 xDaunt wrote:On May 16 2018 03:13 TheDwf wrote:On May 16 2018 03:00 Nebuchad wrote:While we're discussing the meaning of genocide here's an IDF account discussing the meaning of weapon of terror 2018 is like the death of parody accounts, they're completely useless now. + Show Spoiler + Wow... Amazing how colonial racism can make one's perception so radically out of touch with reality. This is the kind of "terrorist threat" that they killed yesterday: + Show Spoiler +RIP Fadi Abu Saleh... double "weapon of terror" (disabled civilian + rocks!!). First they took his land, then his legs, and finally his life. Clearly this guy wanted to meet Allah, so he should be thankful that the IDF obliged him. Same with all of the other people that the IDF killed. It's pretty reasonable to expect that mass protesting and attacking enemy soldiers at a militarized border is only going to end one way. Hamas and the Palestinians wanted a massacre for propaganda purposes, and the IDF gave it to them. This is why Haley needed to walk out of the UN when the Palestinians got up to speak. The Palestinians wanted this, so they can go fuck themselves if they're now going to complain about the logical result of sending tens of thousands of civilians to stir shit up at an enemy, militarized border. They're a bunch of hypocrites. Is it your opinion that people should not protest militarized locations?
No, obviously as we all know when the Americans were policed by British military they all gladly accepted it and shouldn't have complained. I'm sure XDaunt will agree
|
The official state motto of New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die"
It is on every licenses plate issued from that state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DdJ_QNEUwAIW7Dh.jpg)
