«12. . .1,2201,2211,2221,2231,2241,2251,226. . .2,1812,182»
If Israel were only fighting defensive wars since their refounding in 1947/1948, why haven't they returned the land they took during those defensive conflicts?
Who said they were only defensive? Israel acquired the lands more than once over the past 5000 years. I cannot think of a single nation that didn't acquire lands in offensive wars. This particular conflict is about Israel defending lands they had retaken more than 50 years ago.
While I am at 27 in Workforce Participation rate and my old friend Northern borland is at number one I hear he employs incredibly cheap labor. Kaputer is still where you should do business. As to 
Nation of Quebec do you really want to do business there? They require some knowledge of French.
They were hiding within the actual protesters. Dirty bastards, I know Israel was protecting their boarder. Sometimes it's hard to tell them from a civ, I actually took the training for it in the Army and it's still hard. They were doing their jobs, but I will not dismiss the fact that innocent people still were shot and some were killed. We can't look away from that and we need to hold everyone accountable instead of choosing sides. As I said before, I love Israel and I actually trained with some guys from the IDF and Saudi Arabia in my tenure; I even talked to a guy who was a 27 year old Major, think about that for a second. We are partners in defeating terror, but I for a fact that they have a lot of demons in their closet and you have to be an idiot to not look at the history of why things are the way they are. It's like the U.S. with Iran, it's a reason they hate us; from the replacing of their democratically elected leader to the shooting down of their passenger jet and then not apologizing for it.
About 50 of the 60 killed were Hamas according to Hamas. If the Israelis were shooting indiscriminately into the crowds massacring the protesters that would stand to reason that the protesters were either 85% militants or the Israelis were in fact only trying to kill Hamas invaders. What would have happened if Israel had not tried to kill the people that were trying to penetrate Israel's borders? Can you imagine the blood that would have been spilled if the floodgates were opened?
Borders that are not protected by lethal force are more likely to result in more death especially if it is reasonable to believe that even a small percentage will be hostile.
Trust me, they would have cleared it up. Our guys were on the ground too because of the Embassy opening just in case they need a hand. They are a pretty defensive nation, I knew a guy who was in their SF who told me about how they trained.
Anyone watching the Royal Wedding, almost time for our British Brother in Arm to marry our 'Merican (must be said very aggressively)!
I don't see the point. I don't understand the excitement. Aren't the British royals inconsequential?
People like seeing people happy. Plus I'm military, I love the pageantry and crisp order of the royals.
How was it?
It was better than Williams, it wasn't stuffy and stiff. Plus Meg had brought her pastor; I don't know if any of you have been to a black church before, but black pastors go in. Plus, it was a short wedding and Harry almost cried. All in all, in was great. I have a feeling that she'll be the new Diana, without the inner woes. The family loves her, you can actually tell.
Don't you Just Hate it when you accidentaly Make Slavery Legal? help How To Remove It PLS
Going good.
You just have to wait till an issue pops up where the people don't want slavery. It will bring down your economy no doubt, but your political freedom and civil rights will go up along with the end of slavery in your nation. It might pop-up before the weekend.
Read All About It! This Week:
- The Rejected Times celebrates 15 years of TRR
- The Tour is complete in The Confederation Coverage
- The Elparia Herald gets sporty
- Please Understand - the gossip!
Who would win? Find out in these daily polls before they break for summer
2nd Interregional Writing Contest - get your entries in by 25 May
The Sands are playing 🎲🎲 Craps 🎲🎲 this week
LOL! I accidentally outlawed religious worship once. Judging by your post I could have done worse.
How is everyone
Pretty good, just started a new term in college. Apparently, I won't have a summer vacation till after my birthday. So of course, I'm very happy right now.
Nice
A "right" in the sense of the word the Bill of Rights understood the term is a limitation on government power - it is NOT being part of the government (ruling over others) or being part of the selection process for taxation and government spending. The American States restricted the vote to those who paid the Property Tax (the main source of State and local revenue at the time - Federal Government spending did not become really important in peacetime till the 1930s), the franchise included female Property Tax payers in such States as New Jersey (till the Democrats took the vote AWAY from female Property Tax payers in the early 19th century - Wyoming later reversing this trend against women voting, but Wyoming did not become a State till 1890).
As for criminals (rich or poor) voting - criminals setting the laws for other people, that does not make much sense. "But the poor communities" - well they will certainly stay poor if the criminals are in charge of them. Although historically in such major cities as Chicago disguised criminals have long been in charge anyway (| admit that). I am told that Chicago once had an honest Mayor - in the middle of the 1920s (the gangsters went to the town of Cicero in the four years he was in charge).
All be that being said - the "War On Drugs" (which has no Constitutional basis - at least not as far as the Federal government is concerned) has produced millions of "criminals" and none of the Founders really thought of a situation where a large part of the population would be declared "criminals" by insane laws passed by an elected legislature. In a secret ballot it is unlikely that most people would have voted for these laws - but a legislature votes in public, and politicians have to be careful not to offend fanatics who vote on single issues. This was how alcohol got banned as well - there was no public vote, it was banned by politicians who did NOT believe in what they were doing (they were not total idiots - they were cynical men of the world), but did not want to offend a minority of single-issue-voters.
I believe that the same should be true today with the exception that the right to vote is earned by paying more in tax than you receive in government welfare, kickbacks, and subsidies. Only people who have proved to be capable in their own lives should be able to choose the direction of the nation.
So you think that it's a good idea, to deny Americans living in America, the right to vote based on wealth? If that became an Amendment, we better had gotten rid of the 2nd Amendment because there would be a lot of dead people in the streets of America otherwise.
«12. . .1,2201,2211,2221,2231,2241,2251,226. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
