RustyNails
Member
Well, you havent been paying attention. TheLaughingStock posts regularly and defends the Fox News spin.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
RustyNails
Member
Awful. Both sides, amirite? Al Sharpton is just as fearmongering, racebaiting, outright lying blowhard just like Hannity?
nature boy
Member
That's a perfect 10 on the whataboutism scale.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Chris Kyle types. I legitimately believe a bunch of ICE agents would be serial killers or homicidal vigilantes if they didn't have a job that let them do this nonsense. They all need therapy or jail.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
No, Hannity is a unique reflection of evil previously unseen in human history - like sentient, streaming refuse single-mindedly focused on the destruction of truth, decency, and our common values. If Sean Hannity were ever emblematic of popular opinion the only solution left would be to destroy this nation in a nuclear Holocaust not unlike what God did to the Canaanites.
But Al Sharpton and Jesse Watters are probably equally ranked on the chump scale.
Ok, who do I pull out of the woodwork instead? Ed Schultz? Keith Olbermann?
eBay Huckster
Member
evil is fine
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Honestly I think the alcoholism permanently eroded my short term memory function.
It's not a line of reasoning I wholly believe in, but it could be argued the problem really isn't Fox News - it's the average intelligence and lack of critical-thinking of its viewers. We all look at it and shout "How the fuck can you attack Obama for a suit, but defend someone who sexually assaults women?" But for people who never think critically about news, or honestly believe that left-wing media has a bias because their average-intelligence friends said so, Fox News is simply spoon-feeding them what they (think they) want.
Yes, Fox News ought not to stir-the-pot, and really should have better journalistic standards. But there's a reason why their ratings have dipped recently - even people who don't think critically about the news and aren't all that smart realise that something's wrong with Trump.
Yes, Fox News ought not to stir-the-pot, and really should have better journalistic standards. But there's a reason why their ratings have dipped recently - even people who don't think critically about the news and aren't all that smart realise that something's wrong with Trump.
Right, but just to be clear, your plan for bringing about that world is to do nothing and hope it all works out and Assad decides to just switch to a peaceful transition to democracy. Which he might actually do once he's done sending the Kurds to deathcamps! But hey, isn't tolerating genocide because intervention would be politically difficult really what moral pacifism is all about?
Spoiled Milk
Banned
If I remember right, their ratings go down even worse if they criticize Trump.
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
She's gone? CNN just became 40% less unwatchable.
There's your problem. Jesse Watters is a known racist, sexist scumbag.Look at this short Fox News segment: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/894282579486031873
The host asks about Trumps record so far and the one guest makes the point the Trump hasnt realized any policies yet, so the positive job numbers cant be accredited to anything Trump did.
The guest also mentioned that the job numbers have been like that for several years at this point. In fact, the first 6 months of 2016 more jobs had been added than in the first 6 months of 2017.
Here are the numbers:
At this point the host Jesse Watters says thats not true.
Which is a lie. I say lie because he is spreading falsehoods on purpose here.
For the past years, during Obamas term, Fox News was busy talking about these numbers every single month. Every single month these positive numbers came out and Fox News told its viewers how they dont matter and how they are not accurate.
Based on the amount of reporting they have done on those numbers I cant give Jesse Watters the benefit of the doubt here. He knew, and yet he still lied and said that its not true that these numbers have been like that for years.
Fox News is doing shameful journalism to the point where I would call it propaganda.
First they talk about how these numbers are inaccurate and meaningless during Obamas term.
Now that its Trump term the narrative suddenly changed and Fox News no longer calls them inaccurate and meaningless, but now acts like this is a new development under Trump, lying about the fact that this development has been going on for years and its based on legislation Obama pushed through in his first term.
They end the interview by giving the last word to a pro Trump pundit who gets to voice the opinion that you dont necessarily have to do concrete things like legislation in order to get results.
Which is, especially, when talking about the job numbers, grade A bullshit.
But thats where the segment ended, no further discussion, the bullshit goes unchallenged.
So bottom line: The truth was called not true and total nonsense stands at the end.
Viewer successfully misinformed.
Unfortunately I know that I am unlikely to find a Trump supporter or conservative or Fox News viewer here on NeoGAF and I also don't know any privately, but I am dying to see how anyone would defend that.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Every two or three weeks I try to keep up with prison reform news. Letter from The Sentencing Project, interesting bits highlighted:
The Honorable William H. Pryor, Jr., Acting Chair
United States Sentencing Commission
1 Columbus Circle, NE, Suite 2-500, South Lobby
Washington, DC 20002-8002
July 28, 2017
Attn: Public Affairs Priorities Comment
Dear Judge Pryor:
On behalf of The Sentencing Project, a national research and advocacy organization dedicated to a fair and proportionate criminal justice system, I am writing to submit public comments to the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) regarding its policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2018. For over a decade the USSC has taken critical steps to amend the sentencing guidelines, particularly in federal cases involving drugs, to ensure greater fairness and to limit racial disparity and excessive sentencing. The USSCs ongoing attention to mandatory sentencing and commitment to studying the effects of these changes is laudable.
The population in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons reached a peak in 2013, with 219,000 people. By 2016, this figure had declined by 12%, reaching 192,000. There is little doubt that the USSCs adjustments to the sentencing guidelines as well as its amendments to retroactively apply these changes made a substantial contribution to this reduction. The decline has resulted in a lower scale of overcrowding and substantial cost savings, as well as in reuniting early thousands of families with loved ones serving harsh punishments.
Nonetheless, the federal prison population is 700% higher than in 1980, incurs substantial costs which hamstring the Department of Justices overall law enforcement obligations, and still results in dangerous overcrowding and conditions of confinement. This growth is the result of a number of factors, including: a dramatic escalation of federal drug prosecutions since the mid-1980s; the adoption of a range of mandatory sentencing policies by Congress; the elimination of parole; and a guideline structure that sets sentencing ranges higher than necessary to achieve the USSC goals of just punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
Nationally, the population growth of recent decades has been due to changes in policy, not crime rates. At the state level, the National Research Councils 2014 report, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States, concluded that the tripling of the prison population between 1980 and 2010 was entirely due to increased prison admissions and time served in prison. Similar trends can be seen in the federal system. According to findings of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, between 1985 and 2014, the probability of receiving a prison sentence as opposed to probation for a federal crime increased dramatically, from 50 percent to 90 percent. The number of convictions in US courts nearly doubled, from 40,924 to 76,835, and average time served for drug and weapon crimes each went up from about two years to almost five.
A number of developments and research findings of recent years suggest that it would be timely for the Commission to take a fresh look at the guidelines structure to determine if sentence lengths are sufficient, but not greater than necessary (emphasis added), to achieve the goals of sentencing. Such an exploration would be particularly important for long sentences, as described below, but would be beneficial for all offenses and sentence lengths. International comparisons of prison terms show that sentence lengths in the United States are generally considerably longer than in comparable nations, with little criminological justification. Indeed, other nations have maintained dramatically lower rates of incarceration than the U.S., with no adverse effects on public safety. The Commissions careful consideration of this evidence is essential to maintain a fair and effective guideline system. For example:
The deterrent effect of the justice system on crime is produced by the certainty of punishment, not its severity. Most people contemplating criminal behavior are not thinking they will be caught, and so are not focused on the scale of punishment. They are also generally unfamiliar with statutory penalty structures, and frequently criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems. Moreover, incarcerating people for low-level drug selling, in particular, merely results in their being replaced by other sellers willing to fill their roles for economic gain, and does not address the substance abuse problems that users and some sellers struggle with.
Long sentences that extend beyond an individuals crime-prone-years result in diminishing returns for public safety, and come at great cost to taxpayers. During the life course the prevalence of criminal behavior increases in late childhood, peaks in the teenage years, and begins to decline in the early 20s. During adolescence and into early adulthood, young people are still learning to self-regulate by controlling their impulses, considering the impact of their actions on others, delaying gratification, and resisting the influence of peers. Criminal behaviors fade during adulthood because of greater maturity, and because individuals acquire other forms of social control that promote desistence from crime, such as family responsibilities.
Excessive terms of sentence fail to incorporate the potential for rehabilitation and redemption. More than two-thirds of federal prisoners serving life or virtual life sentences terms of 50-years or more have been convicted of nonviolent crimes, including 30 percent for a drug crime. Among those serving life without parole sentences almost half (49.1%) have been convicted of a drug crime. Individuals convicted of drug offenses and sentenced to life or virtual life at the state level comprise only two percent of these sentences overall. People serving these long sentences are often lowest on the priority list for critical prison programing and treatment. Without the option of parole within the federal system, and the often distant placement of prisoners from home, the familial bonds which are so crucial to successful reintegration suffer. Former President Obamas clemency initiative, which reduced sentences for 1,700 people, 500 of whom expected to die in prison, is a small but important example of the need to allow all individuals an opportunity at redemption.
Efforts to reduce prison sentences and downsize the prison population have not harmed public safety. Indeed, the USSCs own study determined that individuals who had served reduced sentences following the 2007 crack cocaine guideline adjustment and retroactive application did not have higher recidivism rates than their counterparts who had served longer sentences for crack cocaine. Moreover, the states making the most dramatic cuts in incarceration levels, including New Jersey, New York, and California which downsized their prison populations by over 25% in recent years, outperformed the nationwide crime drop in most categories.
Sentencing law experts recommend a more ambitious sentencing reform agenda. The American Law Institute (ALI) earlier this year approved its model penal code for sentencing for federal and state governments after years of deliberations among dozens of legal scholars and experts. ALI members considered the deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation research described above and proposed noteworthy changes to current law to reduce sentence severity. For instance, ALI concludes that terms for single offenses in excess of 20 years are rarely justified on proportionality grounds, and are too long to serve most utilitarian purposes . In response, they proposed a mid-course review for long sentences that could be instructive to the USSC. The ALI recommends that a judge or judicial panel revisit the sentence of any prisoner who has served 15 years or more in prison, and decide if, under present circumstances, the sentence originally imposed or a different sentence better serves the purposes of sentencing. The second look would examine changed circumstances since sentencing, which may mean changed societal assessments of offense gravity, new technologies of risk assessment or treatment, or major changes in the individual or their family circumstances, the crime victims or the community.
The Sentencing Project supports ALIs recent conclusion that public safety can be safeguarded more efficiently, and at far less human cost, through evidence-based policies that are wielded carefully and are continuously tested and improved. We applaud the Commissions thoughtful initiatives to reduce guideline sentences up until this point. However, in the decades since the creation of the USSC, its guidelines and most of the mandatory minimum sentences authorized by Congress, a wealth of research about effective punishment demonstrates that more adjustments to excessive sentences with diminishing public safety benefits are needed.
I appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to collaborating with the Commission as you explore policy priorities during the upcoming amendment cycle.
Sincerely,
Marc Mauer
Executive Director
The Honorable William H. Pryor, Jr., Acting Chair
United States Sentencing Commission
1 Columbus Circle, NE, Suite 2-500, South Lobby
Washington, DC 20002-8002
July 28, 2017
Attn: Public Affairs Priorities Comment
Dear Judge Pryor:
On behalf of The Sentencing Project, a national research and advocacy organization dedicated to a fair and proportionate criminal justice system, I am writing to submit public comments to the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) regarding its policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2018. For over a decade the USSC has taken critical steps to amend the sentencing guidelines, particularly in federal cases involving drugs, to ensure greater fairness and to limit racial disparity and excessive sentencing. The USSCs ongoing attention to mandatory sentencing and commitment to studying the effects of these changes is laudable.
The population in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons reached a peak in 2013, with 219,000 people. By 2016, this figure had declined by 12%, reaching 192,000. There is little doubt that the USSCs adjustments to the sentencing guidelines as well as its amendments to retroactively apply these changes made a substantial contribution to this reduction. The decline has resulted in a lower scale of overcrowding and substantial cost savings, as well as in reuniting early thousands of families with loved ones serving harsh punishments.
Nonetheless, the federal prison population is 700% higher than in 1980, incurs substantial costs which hamstring the Department of Justices overall law enforcement obligations, and still results in dangerous overcrowding and conditions of confinement. This growth is the result of a number of factors, including: a dramatic escalation of federal drug prosecutions since the mid-1980s; the adoption of a range of mandatory sentencing policies by Congress; the elimination of parole; and a guideline structure that sets sentencing ranges higher than necessary to achieve the USSC goals of just punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
Nationally, the population growth of recent decades has been due to changes in policy, not crime rates. At the state level, the National Research Councils 2014 report, The Growth of Incarceration in the United States, concluded that the tripling of the prison population between 1980 and 2010 was entirely due to increased prison admissions and time served in prison. Similar trends can be seen in the federal system. According to findings of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, between 1985 and 2014, the probability of receiving a prison sentence as opposed to probation for a federal crime increased dramatically, from 50 percent to 90 percent. The number of convictions in US courts nearly doubled, from 40,924 to 76,835, and average time served for drug and weapon crimes each went up from about two years to almost five.
A number of developments and research findings of recent years suggest that it would be timely for the Commission to take a fresh look at the guidelines structure to determine if sentence lengths are sufficient, but not greater than necessary (emphasis added), to achieve the goals of sentencing. Such an exploration would be particularly important for long sentences, as described below, but would be beneficial for all offenses and sentence lengths. International comparisons of prison terms show that sentence lengths in the United States are generally considerably longer than in comparable nations, with little criminological justification. Indeed, other nations have maintained dramatically lower rates of incarceration than the U.S., with no adverse effects on public safety. The Commissions careful consideration of this evidence is essential to maintain a fair and effective guideline system. For example:
The deterrent effect of the justice system on crime is produced by the certainty of punishment, not its severity. Most people contemplating criminal behavior are not thinking they will be caught, and so are not focused on the scale of punishment. They are also generally unfamiliar with statutory penalty structures, and frequently criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems. Moreover, incarcerating people for low-level drug selling, in particular, merely results in their being replaced by other sellers willing to fill their roles for economic gain, and does not address the substance abuse problems that users and some sellers struggle with.
Long sentences that extend beyond an individuals crime-prone-years result in diminishing returns for public safety, and come at great cost to taxpayers. During the life course the prevalence of criminal behavior increases in late childhood, peaks in the teenage years, and begins to decline in the early 20s. During adolescence and into early adulthood, young people are still learning to self-regulate by controlling their impulses, considering the impact of their actions on others, delaying gratification, and resisting the influence of peers. Criminal behaviors fade during adulthood because of greater maturity, and because individuals acquire other forms of social control that promote desistence from crime, such as family responsibilities.
Excessive terms of sentence fail to incorporate the potential for rehabilitation and redemption. More than two-thirds of federal prisoners serving life or virtual life sentences terms of 50-years or more have been convicted of nonviolent crimes, including 30 percent for a drug crime. Among those serving life without parole sentences almost half (49.1%) have been convicted of a drug crime. Individuals convicted of drug offenses and sentenced to life or virtual life at the state level comprise only two percent of these sentences overall. People serving these long sentences are often lowest on the priority list for critical prison programing and treatment. Without the option of parole within the federal system, and the often distant placement of prisoners from home, the familial bonds which are so crucial to successful reintegration suffer. Former President Obamas clemency initiative, which reduced sentences for 1,700 people, 500 of whom expected to die in prison, is a small but important example of the need to allow all individuals an opportunity at redemption.
Efforts to reduce prison sentences and downsize the prison population have not harmed public safety. Indeed, the USSCs own study determined that individuals who had served reduced sentences following the 2007 crack cocaine guideline adjustment and retroactive application did not have higher recidivism rates than their counterparts who had served longer sentences for crack cocaine. Moreover, the states making the most dramatic cuts in incarceration levels, including New Jersey, New York, and California which downsized their prison populations by over 25% in recent years, outperformed the nationwide crime drop in most categories.
Sentencing law experts recommend a more ambitious sentencing reform agenda. The American Law Institute (ALI) earlier this year approved its model penal code for sentencing for federal and state governments after years of deliberations among dozens of legal scholars and experts. ALI members considered the deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation research described above and proposed noteworthy changes to current law to reduce sentence severity. For instance, ALI concludes that terms for single offenses in excess of 20 years are rarely justified on proportionality grounds, and are too long to serve most utilitarian purposes . In response, they proposed a mid-course review for long sentences that could be instructive to the USSC. The ALI recommends that a judge or judicial panel revisit the sentence of any prisoner who has served 15 years or more in prison, and decide if, under present circumstances, the sentence originally imposed or a different sentence better serves the purposes of sentencing. The second look would examine changed circumstances since sentencing, which may mean changed societal assessments of offense gravity, new technologies of risk assessment or treatment, or major changes in the individual or their family circumstances, the crime victims or the community.
The Sentencing Project supports ALIs recent conclusion that public safety can be safeguarded more efficiently, and at far less human cost, through evidence-based policies that are wielded carefully and are continuously tested and improved. We applaud the Commissions thoughtful initiatives to reduce guideline sentences up until this point. However, in the decades since the creation of the USSC, its guidelines and most of the mandatory minimum sentences authorized by Congress, a wealth of research about effective punishment demonstrates that more adjustments to excessive sentences with diminishing public safety benefits are needed.
I appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to collaborating with the Commission as you explore policy priorities during the upcoming amendment cycle.
Sincerely,
Marc Mauer
Executive Director
@kid_mao said:
https://twitter.com/kid_mao/status/893858157205893120
This, uh...seems quite problematic?
If Palestine stretches between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea, any specific ideas on where the State of Israel would be located?
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
There would be no Israel I'm guessing here.
Basileus777
Member
Genocide justifies retaliatory genocide right? It worked for the communists in the late 40s.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That's.. uhh..
I thought it was just a random twitter comment, then I click on it to see a video of them chanting it enthusiastically.
wow
Guess I have a video to bring up whenever anyone posts about the DSA in a non-sarcastic manner.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
So the JV White House Communications Department
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oof. The DSA elected a guy to their governing board who didn't disclose that they currently work for a police union. A lot of people are understandably very upset about this. As someone who is, well, call it cautious about the DSA but also broadly wishes them well I'm honestly genuinely interested in how they handle this.
The Democratic party deals with these sorts of issues by everyone constantly being unhappy about everything but the DSA is rightfully trying to be a better organization than that. I hope they manage to find a solution to this that actually pleases almost everyone.
The Democratic party deals with these sorts of issues by everyone constantly being unhappy about everything but the DSA is rightfully trying to be a better organization than that. I hope they manage to find a solution to this that actually pleases almost everyone.
Well technically, you know, the Palestinian territories already border the Mediterranean and the Jordan.
Abinash117
Member
In the sea obviously.
Do these people actually understand what they are asking for here and what would happen?
VendettaRed07
Member
Regardless of how much worse Fox News is than anyone else I think in general these 24 hour political news networks are bad and we'd all be better off if people were forced to watch C-span or something instead
They should just be straight telling the news rather than linking things together crafting narratives and telling the audience how to feel or what to be angry about
They should just be straight telling the news rather than linking things together crafting narratives and telling the audience how to feel or what to be angry about
Given how enthusiastic they all seemed about it, clearly not. But I've noticed what seems to matter most to these groups is just rhetoric.
But then people might come to their own conclusions that don't benefit a right wing agenda. Hence why this will never happen. They want to do the thinking for you.
guys, it isn't "from the river to the sea, Palestine will supplant the Israeli state and also kill all the Jews"
it's literally Palestine will be free
then again the ADL put them on some kind of enemies list for voting to endorse BDS so maybe I'm on the fringe on this issue
it's literally Palestine will be free
then again the ADL put them on some kind of enemies list for voting to endorse BDS so maybe I'm on the fringe on this issue
TBH considering the amount of new people in the DSA I'm wondering how many of them are neophytes caught up in movementism and want to sound radical, and how many of them are legit proposing abolishing Israel entirely.
That's not what the resolution that they passed was about by the way, it was about endorsing BDS.
Abinash117
Member
Yeah, I just realized it is about BDS looking into it. I'm pretty sure a few individuals is probably asking for abolishing the Israel, but they don't really understanding what they are asking.
BDS is pretty radical of a position in the US. It appears like they are going to be pretty far left to the Democrats.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I agree that the US stance on Israel is not only too lenient but that what Israel is engaged in is probably criminal (I'm waffling here only because its not an issue I'm super well read on) but I've also become...disillusioned with BDS-esque tactics lately. Do we have evidence that boycotts and sanctions manage to hurt people in power without churning through hurting their citizens via economic hardship first?
That's what they're angling for, yes. The DSA is an activist organization rather than a party, but they seek to work with and within political parties to push things leftward. So now that they have a higher profile they're going to try to push that Overton window left.
They also endorsed single payer healthcare and the abolition of the profit motive within the healthcare industry, which is again quite a bit further than what the furthest left Dems have proposed.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I mean, it's the Hamas battle cry to kill all the Jews in Israel.
It's like shouting a confederacy slogan at a conservative conference while passing a statement praising the police.
Even if you don't know what the slogan means, I mean...
I mean, it says that Palestine will be free from the river to the sea. That implies that all of that land will be Palestine, right?
That's...all the land? The logical implication is that Israel doesn't exist.
I'm happy to accept that lots of them don't realize that's what that means, but, I'm pretty sure that is what it means?
I mean, I'm not sure about BDS, but it's a lot less extreme of a position.
Just to be clear, I like the DSA in general. I think this particular thing is an example of what that other thread is talking about in terms of anti-Semitism creeping into leftist positions through oversimplified miscontextualization of the Israel/Palestine conflict. I'm not really saying that the DSA should be abolished, just that they should, you know, disavow wanting to eliminate Israel from the maps.
Oh shit, I didn't realize it was actually from Hamas. That's fucked up :\
I mean I can ironically get behind the Grey Wolves thing but that's internet humour, not actual public discourse
Bad look DSA
edit - I still don't think that particular verbiage necessarily means the destruction of Israel. But obviously given its provenance that's how it was intended.
I mean I can ironically get behind the Grey Wolves thing but that's internet humour, not actual public discourse
Bad look DSA
edit - I still don't think that particular verbiage necessarily means the destruction of Israel. But obviously given its provenance that's how it was intended.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I'm not advocating for them being abolished either. (Unless they actually start using that language explicitly).
But, it does underline the issue with these far-left groups. It really hurts their advocacy ability and eliminates any chance of getting elected to any office more important than animal control with that level of awareness (assuming they don't mean it in the sense they chanted).
Basically, if you are going to enter into the "fray", you should have a basic understanding of the situation, especially with something with such a mess of a history.
Oh, I guess that kinda makes my post moot.
This is the issue w/ a number of stances/arguments that pop up (like "they didn't used to have issues w/ Jewish people till Israel popped up") - the question of "Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?" hangs over everything like a dark cloud because there's a very open question after hearing the argument about whether the person actually believes that to be true!
BlastProcessing
Member
Brit Hume's Twitter Likes are pretty eclectic.
Abinash117
Member
Can't really push the Democratic Party to the left than it already is, I think. Being a mainstream party they can't really go to the left too much than they already have. I think I see why a lot of self-proclaimed progressives and others criticize the Democratic Party.
The party is in the way. I think we are going to more of left-wing groups that are further to the left of the party is going to target the party more in the future, especially if the party doesn't go to the left as much as those left wing groups want.
I'm not saying this isn't true, because I haven't heard that before so this is a legit question, but why does Hamas have a battle cry that rhymes in English? Is it something they changed around in translation to make it fit better?
Considering the politics of the Israel situation I think a better comparison would be if a group of activists was chanting a slogan created by a Native American terrorist organization that wanted to decolonize the US. Like, yeah, that's pretty stupid and won't happen and it's a two wrongs don't make a right scenario, but at the same time I would feel incredibly uncomfortable telling hypothetical Native Americans that I didnt understand why they might feel that way considering what my people have done to them. It kind of reminds me of the Iranian Death to America chant.
What is he doing wrong? he seems very charismatic.
The thing is the argument then becomes "what is your definition of "Israel"".
He hasn't moved on to unpixelated JAV.
edit: oops, thought this was in regard to Brit Hume lol
Spoiled Milk
Banned
That post only has TWO LIKES. HE WAS ONE OF ONLY TWO PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO THOUGHT TO PRESS THE LIKE BUTTON.Brit Hume's Twitter Likes are pretty eclectic.
Lolllllll
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Can't a man indulge in his face sitting fetish in between Bible studies, damn.
Autodidact
Banned
And conservatives have the nerve to call us gays deviants. Ideology of projection, indeed.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I can't find anything suggesting that image is real.
- Status