Religion of peace, isn't it? Oh and they've got some lovely graphic pictures so you're sure the Daily mail isn't lying about this story, regardless of their track record.
Random News Article Discussion II
-
-
@Monkey:
I have precisely zero reason to think you have even the slightest understanding of the causes and/or course of the Libyan war based off the other thread.
The fact that you're mentioning Russia being the most obvious red flag. Because Russia had fuck all to do with Libyan.I bet you can't name more than two prior interventions, and their names are Iraq and Afghanistan.
What, should I go back to Kuwait (oh wait that one was actually okay, I forgot) or all the assassinated leaders in South America? But wait, that's Cold War stuff, meh.
But that's a straw man right there. I was taking about the efficiency, not about how many there were or weren't before.I've been reading your posts on the forum. I know you're a smart guy. You also know alot of facts (which I've already forgotten, no doubt). But you're being too defensive of the US. Your response to my other post makes that all too obvious. I hope you don't seriously think the US never did anything whatsoever to aggravate the Russkies? And that all the US did is right? And that there wouldn't have been better alternatives?
There's a line between looking into policies, strategies and actions and saying they were ill-advised and being a Russian-paid propagandist, like you accused me in the other thread (which I'm not going to respond to, since I pretty much made my point in here).
And P.S.: Russia and the current situation had a lot to do with Lybia. They never would have passed the UN resolution had it been about regime change. And what happened impacted US-Russian relations for sure.
Read here and here (just googled them on the net, don't nail me down on the sources). -
wait wha…. Are Monkey King and Demon X having the same argument over in two different threads?
Are you two arguing over Russia both in the Random News and US Election threads…. -
wait wha…. Are Monkey King and Demon X having the same argument over in two different threads?
Are you two arguing over Russia both in the Random News and US Election threads….Is that what's happening? I thought I kept clicking on the same thread by accident lol.
-
wait wha…. Are Monkey King and Demon X having the same argument over in two different threads?
Are you two arguing over Russia both in the Random News and US Election threads….I'm racking my brain here trying to write some kind of appropriate in Soviet Russia joke.
-
Sorry guys, I made sure not to derail the threads any further by only replying in this thread. :D
-
Religion of peace, isn't it?.
I wasn't aware that the more extreme, violent, and dogmatic Muslims were saying this. As opposed to the
more moderate and liberal Muslims who'd never do something like that. -
Look up Ashura on Wikipedia and you see that commemorance is mostly peaceful, with several Muslim countries specifically banning self-flagellation as part of the ceremonies. Some communities looking to honor it in a more productive way even organize blood drives.
So yeah, still fear-mongering propaganda.
-
Still a pretty fucked up practice though.
Traditionalist pockets really do seem un-touched by time sometimes.
-
Religion of peace, isn't it? Oh and they've got some lovely graphic pictures so you're sure the Daily mail isn't lying about this story, regardless of their track record.
This is fucking retarded even for you.
-
Erm yeah, that's a very small minority of muslims who participate in that, heck on Ashura I was FASTING like the majority of muslims do (and also, sidenote: it also falls on the same day as Yom Kippur, which is celebrated in Judaism).
When I saw headlines or pictures shared of this practice I refused to look or read about it. It's disgusting.
-
No, the problem was taking out Gaddafi and losing the Russian's trust, that was the problem.
And you know, since nobody seems to learn from other interventions which have taking place for decades now, that's not an excuse.
When did Russia trust us?
-
What, should I go back to Kuwait (oh wait that one was actually okay, I forgot)
gj
You skipped a bunch to go there though.
or all the assassinated leaders in South America? But wait, that's Cold War stuff, meh.
Also horribly disengenous arguments considering what we're discussing is modern intervention missions. Interventions against events and ongoing conflict.
In fact neither Iraq nor Afghanistan actually qualify at all.But that's a straw man right there. I was taking about the efficiency, not about how many there were or weren't before.Oh a strawman huh?
"And you know, since nobody seems to learn from other interventions which have taking place for decades now, that's not an excuse."
Yeah ok, talking about track records or any of that, totally a strawman, me putting words in your mouth yeah.But you're being too defensive of the US.
Saying we fucked up by walking away and leaving the entire country of Libya hanging at the mercy of the elements is what you quoted.
But its ok, because I remember you. You're the one who actually argued against the actual Libyan here, but yes its somehow about the USA for me to get mad at someone saying "Gaddafi should not have died".I hope you don't seriously think the US never did anything whatsoever to aggravate the Russkies?
Russia's current status as belligerent crank is its own internal mess and the nationalist siege program Putin has built to buffer himself.
There's a line between looking into policies, strategies and actions and saying they were ill-advised and being a Russian-paid propagandist, like you accused me in the other thread (which I'm not going to respond to, since I pretty much made my point in here).
lol, no one let alone me called you a Russian paid propagandist. No one even suggested it lol. Where did this come from??
And P.S.: Russia and the current situation had a lot to do with Lybia.
Russia had no ties of significance, no investments of note, no historical ties to, and no particular interest in Libya.
I'm defensive of the US? You're getting defensive of Russia in an event it has nothing to do with and wasn't involved with.They never would have passed the UN resolution had it been about regime change.
Russia of course was just aghast at this because
nothing. Its their textbook excuse for recent actions. But they had no actual investment of care in Libya, a conflict significantly more justified and reasoned than the Iraq invasion. A true out of the blue military conflict of far worse scope and scale. And Russia I guess doesn't care about that or something. No it was Libya where the dictator by pretty much their own admission of signing such a resolution, was way out of line with his people. Sure thing.
-
Religion of peace, isn't it? Oh and they've got some lovely graphic pictures so you're sure the Daily mail isn't lying about this story, regardless of their track record.
As disgusting as it is, I don't think self-flagellation and self-mutilation disqualifies a religion from calling itself peaceful. A far higher percentage of Christians and Jews (and Muslims, even though it isn't mentioned in the Quran) practice circumcision than participate in those crazy rituals anyway.
-
Self flagellation is only violence in the most meaningless sense. It's a gesture on ones self in BOTH the Catholic and Shia cases in mourning a high level martyr by trying to capture a bit of their suffering during their martyrdom. Its kinda weird, but its just some blood in a symbolic gesture that doesn't even remotely suggest violence on other people, and is completely unaggressive in every way and form.
The only cringey thing about the link is the parents getting their little kid involved. -
@Monkey:
Self flagellation is only violence in the most meaningless sense. It's a gesture on ones self in BOTH the Catholic and Shia cases in mourning a high level martyr by trying to capture a bit of their suffering during their martyrdom. Its kinda weird, but its just some blood in a symbolic gesture that doesn't even remotely suggest violence on other people, and is completely unaggressive in every way and form.
The only cringey thing about the link is the parents getting their little kid involved.Dunno. Self-harm doesn't seem alright. No matter the purpose.
I cringed at each picture of a man rending his own back bloody with a metal whip.
-
Dunno. Self-harm doesn't seem alright. No matter the purpose.
I mean, it probably hurts. But its not depression oriented or anything. And its not me or you. Really, who cares?
If some dude feels its important, and knows he might scar his back, whatever. -
I'm more concerned about the mental health implications than the blood itself. Tying chronic self-mutilation into religion could in theory help the mutilators control themselves better, but in practice I haven't seen particularly positive results.
It's a bit like trusting your bar buddies to help you manage your drinking problem.
-
@Monkey:
I mean, it probably hurts. But its not depression oriented or anything. And its not me or you. Really, who cares?
If some dude feels its important, and knows he might scar his back, whatever.Like i guess it's the rationalization part of it that bothers me the most.
I mean if a man cuts himself it's a shock, but if a guy flagellates himself that's treated as less crazy.
But on the otherhand i don't care about people doing scar tattoes or dumbass stuff like that. So yeah, dunno.
-
@Monkey:
I mean, it probably hurts. But its not depression oriented or anything. And its not me or you. Really, who cares?
If some dude feels its important, and knows he might scar his back, whatever.Depression and anxiety are the primary internal factors that cause people to seek help from religion, and arguably ritual in general.
-
Depression and anxiety are the primary internal factors that cause people to seek help from religion, and arguably ritual in general.
dexterwitheyebrownraised.jpg
-
I'm more concerned about the mental health implications than the blood itself. Tying chronic self-mutilation into religion could in theory help the mutilators control themselves better, but in practice I haven't seen particularly positive results.
It's a bit like trusting your bar buddies to help you manage your drinking problem.
Mental health problems don't really have anything to do with the minority Shia practice of self-mutiliation on Ashura. I don't like it.. well more than I don't like it, I hate it, but at the end of the day those who practice it are doing it for faith-based reasons, and like Zephos said, it's their thing and it doesn't affect me, so I don't really care. It's their belief so their way is theirs and my way is mine. Getting children involved is really hurtful to think about, but there it is.
People who participate in faith-based rituals aren't all suffering from mental illness. Fasting may be seen as harmful to many but I and millions of others fast for a month every year for faith-based reasons, and we're not all depressed or anxious.
-
I'm not assuming that everyone who fasts is mentally ill, but I do have to ask… do you experience emotional benefits from fasting? If not, why do you do it?
-
I'm not assuming that everyone who fasts is mentally ill, but I do have to ask… do you experience emotional benefits from fasting? If not, why do you do it?
Sure there are emotional benefits, but fasting is just like any other ritual act that I do due to belief, like wearing hijab for example. The primary reason we do it is because people of faith believe that in following the commands of God as best as you can, you may draw closer to God and please Him. That's what faith is, really, no matter what religion one follows.
-
LOL. That guy again? His backwards and misspelled "robbyisafaggot" user name cracks me up every time I'm reminded he tried that.
…..........technically, he's not wrong.
-
Venezuela reached a new level of fuck up, but I don't want to talk about it yet.
-
@Monkey:
gj
You skipped a bunch to go there though.Also horribly disengenous arguments considering what we're discussing is modern intervention missions. Interventions against events and ongoing conflict.
In fact neither Iraq nor Afghanistan actually qualify at all.Oh yes, I know I did. But how would you know if I knew them all or if just took a quick glance at wiki?
And yes, that's a point for you. Not the same thing as the interventions in the Middle East.
Oh a strawman huh?
"And you know, since nobody seems to learn from other interventions which have taking place for decades now, that's not an excuse."
Yeah ok, talking about track records or any of that, totally a strawman, me putting words in your mouth yeah.Hey, I struck that out and apologized ;)
Saying we fucked up by walking away and leaving the entire country of Libya hanging at the mercy of the elements is what you quoted.
But its ok, because I remember you. You're the one who actually argued against the actual Libyan here, but yes its somehow about the USA for me to get mad at someone saying "Gaddafi should not have died".I don't know why is it that you have to be so belligerent on these issues. You're the one who's being disingenious now. "Argued against the actual Libyan"? Come on now. I know this intervention was argued as R2P. And I might even see it as a good principle. But one might argue that less people - actual Libyans - would be dead or would have lost their homes + their regime would have been stable with only the friggin no-fly zone and without further interfence.
And yeah, you recognized the problem too, nobody did anything after the war. But when did that happen? Ever? Give me some real good examples of state-building.Russia's current status as belligerent crank is its own internal mess and the nationalist siege program Putin has built to buffer himself.
Of course it is. It's like, come on man. You've heard of hegemons and hegemoic stability theories and Realpolitk, right?
lol, no one let alone me called you a Russian paid propagandist. No one even suggested it lol. Where did this come from??
And it doesn't help their paid comments (& other Internet propagandists) make some people truly feel like Western media is lying and Putin of all people is telling the truth. Ugh.
You are one of those people
Apparently I misunderstood your answer, sorry.
Russia had no ties of significance, no investments of note, no historical ties to, and no particular interest in Libya.
I'm defensive of the US? You're getting defensive of Russia in an event it has nothing to do with and wasn't involved with.First, that's apparently wrong:
@AmericanProgressArticle:First, Russia’s significant commercial interests in Libya range from oil-and-gas contracts to railway construction. No one wants instability where they have economic interests at stake, and Russia is no exception. International military intervention clearly puts these interests at risk.
Second, there is the issue of potential impact on instability in the North Caucasus region in the southwest of Russia that includes Chechnya. Speaking in the North Caucasus in February, President Medvedev warned that the situation in the Middle East could cause some “densely populated states” to “split into small pieces” and lead to the “further spread of [Islamic] extremism.”I'm sorry to say this, but apparently you refuse to understand how the international system works in this case?
Russia of course was just aghast at this because nothing. Its their textbook excuse for recent actions. But they had no actual investment of care in Libya, a conflict significantly more justified and reasoned than the Iraq invasion. A true out of the blue military conflict of far worse scope and scale. And Russia I guess doesn't care about that or something. No it was Libya where the dictator by pretty much their own admission of signing such a resolution, was way out of line with his people. Sure thing.
Please take a look again at those articles I posted. You really have to look at the big picture sometimes.
And I'm leaving another thing here: The Prisoner's Dilemma is a thing (yeah I know, I'm throwing around with IR theory, gj to myself right?). If you think Putin's behavious has fuck all to do with the US and her allies' behavious, then you're wrong.
When did Russia trust us?
Eh. Depends how you define "trust". It's been an up and down after the Cold War, but this thing hasn't helped.
Here a quote from one of the articles from my post:
The Russian leadership has concerns over its own legitimacy and recognizes that many in the West question its legitimacy. So when they see Western militaries arrayed against a ruling elite with legitimacy issues and hear Western leaders speaking of regime change, they worry what the Western response will be to their own legitimacy issues.
-
Dude, you are reading literal propaganda. You've admitted that you know it's propaganda.
I'm not sure where the confusion lies in "Don't treat creative writing as factual news."
I wouldn't trust anything Fox News boradcast, as they're entirely narrative driven too. They even have video, but they edit and take things out of context constantly.
-
Lithuania election: Farmers' party in shock triumph
The art of the headline isn't dead just yet. And for good reason. Peasant party has never won before.
-
Lithuania election: Farmers' party in shock triumph
The art of the headline isn't dead just yet. And for good reason. Peasant party has never won before.
That's quite a party name they've got there.
So what does this mean for Lithuania then?
-
That's how they earned the trust of the voters - by being the simple and unassuming representative of common folk, the metaphorical our guy. Not a party of corrupt politicians, but true professionals who have real goals and know what they need to do to achieve them. New jobs, return of emigrants, progressive tax, and a brighter tomorrow. Or just some economical stability and more competent local management. Maybe additional alcohol regulations. Whatever works out in the end. After all, 77 out of 141 seats are taken by new faces who don't have to meet unreasonable expectations.
No pressure.
-
That's how they earned the trust of the voters - by being the simple and unassuming representative of common folk, the metaphorical our guy. Not a party of corrupt politicians, but true professionals who have real goals and know what they need to do to achieve them. New jobs, return of emigrants, progressive tax, and a brighter tomorrow. Or just some economical stability and more competent local management. Maybe additional alcohol regulations. Whatever works out in the end. After all, 77 out of 141 seats are taken by new faces who don't have to meet unreasonable expectations.
No pressure.
So they have about six months before they get called worthless sellouts, is what I'm getting here.
-
I don't know why is it that you have to be so belligerent on these issues. You're the one who's being disingenious now. "Argued against the actual Libyan"? Come on now.
Are you upset I mentioned that thing you did? That you clearly would do again because you're still talking about Gaddafi still being alive as positive?
I know this intervention was argued as R2P. And I might even see it as a good principle. But one might argue that less people - actual Libyans - would be dead or would have lost their homes + their regime would have been stable with only the friggin no-fly zone and without further interfence.
With just the no-fly zone you'd have a slower grinding version of the same war, leading to roughly the same conclusion eventually, so actually a big no on that one.
And yeah, you recognized the problem too, nobody did anything after the war. But when did that happen? Ever? Give me some real good examples of state-building.
Look down at the ground your standing on.
Of course it is. It's like, come on man. You've heard of hegemons and hegemoic stability theories and Realpolitk, right?
Yeah, coming out of the mouths of right-wing leaning Cold War types like Henry Kissinger. This is your politics now that Die Link made it their politics?
First, that's apparently wrong:
If you look you will find Russia, the US, and indeed most countries with big profiles and cash, have investments and deals of varying size with virtually every country on earth.
They also have embassies too!
So try again to establish that Russia had some actually notable ties to Gaddafi.Please take a look again at those articles I posted. You really have to look at the big picture sometimes.
You're standing at a fork here.
One road leads to places where concern for Libyan civilians, and victims of American "neo-imperialism" in general.
The other leads to not giving a fuck and allowing for such things because hegemons blah blah big muscle men take what want blah blah realpolitick blah blah spheres of influence blah blah crack a few eggs etc.I guess it really just depends. Do you actually give a single shit about your values as a member of the left, or do you really just like stretching your belief systems and logic to allow for excusing Russia for every bullshit under the sun.
Because you can't do both.
The Russian leadership has concerns over its own legitimacy and recognizes that many in the West question its legitimacy. So when they see Western militaries arrayed against a ruling elite with legitimacy issues and hear Western leaders speaking of regime change, they worry what the Western response will be to their own legitimacy issues.
So the Russian leadership knows it is an authoritarian vote rigging nature, and is terrified that if the Russian people actually rose up against them, that they couldn't roll tanks over protesters because it might make the West shoot them.
You have sympathy for them why? -
@Cyan:
So they have about six months before they get called worthless sellouts, is what I'm getting here.
Whoa, slow down there. This is no New World here, no reason to be in a rush like that.
-
@Monkey:
Are you upset I mentioned that thing you did? That you clearly would do again because you're still talking about Gaddafi still being alive as positive?
Damn, I must really be sounding like a heartless person. You got to see that I'm trying to argue from the point of view of states here. First of all, had everybody just let the thing run its course, Gaddafi would still be ruling. Probably. Or there would have been a shorter war. People seem to forget that the guy was actually quite good for the stability in the countries (and in Africa too, IIRC).
Yes, he was a shitty human being and a bad leader for wanting to kill his own people. But it's not like the States and other Western countries don't maintain relations with "dictators" they deem fit to support.With just the no-fly zone you'd have a slower grinding version of the same war, leading to roughly the same conclusion eventually, so actually a big no on that one.
Or it would have led to the above. Yes, with a lot of human casualties, but we got them due to the country splitting in two anyway.
(you know I'm playing devil's advocate now, right? Whatever you do, short of taking all their guns away, would lead to human losses. And we're then left with "but we did the right thing")Look down at the ground your standing on.
That's a good one right there, but now it's my time to say "it isn't the same thing and you can't compare it".
Yeah, coming out of the mouths of right-wing leaning Cold War types like Henry Kissinger. This is your politics now that Die Link made it their politics?
Now I'm going to say something that's probably going to make you laugh, but I'm actually studying this stuff. That's where I'm coming with all the terminology and trying to see stuff as neutrally as I can. At least when it comes to analysis, that is.
And I do have many leftist ideas (or maybe even "mostly"), but I'm not really following what they "make" their politics.If you look you will find Russia, the US, and indeed most countries with big profiles and cash, have investments and deals of varying size with virtually every country on earth.
They also have embassies too!
So try again to establish that Russia had some actually notable ties to Gaddafi.Well, it did say "significant commercial interests", but that's not really the point. I was pointing to the higher, IR implications.
You're standing at a fork here.
One road leads to places where concern for Libyan civilians, and victims of American "neo-imperialism" in general.
The other leads to not giving a fuck and allowing for such things because hegemons blah blah big muscle men take what want blah blah realpolitick blah blah spheres of influence blah blah crack a few eggs etc.
I guess it really just depends. Do you actually give a single shit about your values as a member of the left, or do you really just like stretching your belief systems and logic to allow for excusing Russia for every bullshit under the sun.
Because you can't do both.And here is the crux of your whole idea of what I am actually doing. There clearly is a difference between understanding (or trying to, at least) why things happen and defending the actions of those who do it.
I'm telling you that the NATO reneging on their agreement not to extend the organization into the former sphere of influence of the Soviet Union, the US having bases all around, putting up missile defenses and the EU trying to put away the buffer zone between the West (Ukraine) and Russia are things that factor into Russia's actions. I'm not saying I think Putin is a swell dude, or a "pure" democrat, or that his regime is great and the media he controls always tells the truth.The problem with values and legitimacy, as we've seen, is that the US did do the right thing now and then (according to international law at least, which sometimes also aligns with moral values), but what good did it ultimately do - both in terms of human lives and stability and its own image? I'm not saying we should give up on this vision, just saying that we need better strategies, dammit!
So the Russian leadership knows it is an authoritarian vote rigging nature, and is terrified that if the Russian people actually rose up against them, that they couldn't roll tanks over protesters because it might make the West shoot them.
You have sympathy for them why?Again, look above. No sympathy from me, as a person. But I understand that any state will want to impede situations where other states can just go and violate their sovereignty, NO matter what.
-
Damn, I must really be sounding like a heartless person. You got to see that I'm trying to argue from the point of view of states here.
To the exclusion of all else.
First of all, had everybody just let the thing run its course, Gaddafi would still be ruling. Probably. Or there would have been a shorter war. People seem to forget that the guy was actually quite good for the stability in the countries (and in Africa too, IIRC).
Because if Syria taught us anything, letting the dictator go hogwild on killing his people results in short wars.
The only things that would result is a massive mess, and the "short war" would be total domination of Gaddafi's forces in the east. Which judging by their initial reactions in Benghazi would mean massacres and mass disappearances. But more likely a grinding war of attrition that would result in the rise of extremist groups as in Syria.
Also he was horrible for stability. What the heck are you talking about. This (ironically) is a guy who had at various points meddled in other people's civil wars, and even invaded another country while also meddling in its civil conflict.Yes, he was a shitty human being and a bad leader for wanting to kill his own people. But it's not like the States and other Western countries don't maintain relations with "dictators" they deem fit to support.
Pointing out the West taking part in bad shit means will not actually make me go "Oh gosh! I guess the bad is actually good!". No matter how many times you attempt it.
Or it would have led to the above. Yes, with a lot of human casualties, but we got them due to the country splitting in two anyway.
The level of violence between the split country is not up to snuff with the level of violence of Gaddafi's forces fighting the rebels at all.
The second round of fighting has killed less than half of what the revolution did, over a period of time over twice as long.That's a good one right there, but now it's my time to say "it isn't the same thing and you can't compare it".
If your original statement had not been a vague one this comeback would actually work.
Well, it did say "significant commercial interests", but that's not really the point. I was pointing to the higher, IR implications.
Then you are dropping even that one bit of substance you have and now are left with no real connection between Russia and Libya.
I'm telling you that the NATO reneging on their agreement not to extend the organization into the former sphere of influence of the Soviet Union,
No such agreement exists or ever did.
the US having bases all around,
The vast majority of which were established during the Cold War, and/or have nothing to do with Russia. Such as bases in Korea and Japan. Or those in Central Asia which are pretty damn temporary in nature and are set up regarding Afghanistan.
putting up missile defenses
You mean the Polish missile idea that never went through because at the time people thought it was silly and unnecessary, but are now talking about again because now it doesn't seem so silly or unnecessary but it still doesn't exist? That one?
and the EU trying to put away the buffer zone between the West (Ukraine) and Russia
Yeah hi, that's an independent country.
Now while you have your head stuck up Kissinger's ass perhaps consider for a few seconds that Ukraine has a population in it with like their own thoughts and wants.
Also "buffer zone" is a military term. The EU is an economic organization.I'm not saying I think Putin is a swell dude, or a "pure" democrat, or that his regime is great and the media he controls always tells the truth.
No, you're just parroting some of the bullshit and weasel arguments they print and publish to muddy the water on clearly shit actions actually being sympathetic.
-
Religion of peace, isn't it? Oh and they've got some lovely graphic pictures so you're sure the Daily mail isn't lying about this story, regardless of their track record.
This stuff just haunts me..
-
This stuff just haunts me..
Are you also haunted by Filipino passion parades where people bleed themselves out in similar ways to commemorate the crucifixion of Jesus? Because it's the same exact sort of thing.
-
I thought he was talking about AfroSamurai posts.
-
@Monkey:
Are you also haunted by Filipino passion parades where people bleed themselves out in similar ways to commemorate the crucifixion of Jesus? Because it's the same exact sort of thing.
Yes that stuff haunts me, I don't like the thought of the impalement of Jesus either when it happened to him.
-
A little something to cheer up after all the shit we seem to talk about here:
-
Because we didn't get a lot of trick-or-treaters in quite a few of the places I used to live, we actually bought straight up actual sized (or king-sized) candy bars for the kids that bothered to stop by. They're a little more common here though, so that's a fun workout. The split-level place was the worst though.
-
The most we've ever gotten at my house is like . . . . three. So we bought a bag of reese's cups just in case, but I doubt we'll see many. Hell, I'll probably be working.
-
Maybe splurge and get the awesomely good candy instead? The boy would say Reese's are the good candy, but stuff like Ferrero Rocher or Toblerone maybe?
-
Y'all Qaeda found Not Guilty. Great:getlost:
-
Great:getlost:
So I'm guessing the one juror that was tossed for bias was the one sane person in the lot.
-
So I'm guessing the one juror that was tossed for bias was the one sane person in the lot.
"Wait a minute, they holed themselves up with guns and tried to coerce the government into giving up nature preserve land to continue the monstrously destructive practice of cattle ranching in the west?"
"That sounds like filthy carpetbagging yankee talk to me."
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
SPEAKING OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE WEST
The Law of the West continues as thus: you can do fucking anything so long as you're white
-
Yeah… no major media is reporting on the Sioux pipeline thing. Only getting that from the internet. They're even arresting reporters.
Bad shit is going down there.
-
@Cyan:
"Wait a minute, they holed themselves up with guns and tried to coerce the government into giving up nature preserve land to continue the monstrously destructive practice of cattle ranching in the west?"
"That sounds like filthy carpetbagging yankee talk to me."
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
SPEAKING OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE WEST
The Law of the West continues as thus: you can do fucking anything so long as you're white
I must be drunk because I seriously cannot believe they fucking got off.
And if I am not pass me a drink