- Banned
- #261
Poor bastardRaiders here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Poor bastardRaiders here.
I posted I was drinking. I never said I was drunk.you have admitted time after time you were posting drunk here.
Good thing that isn't what I said.So you feel saying "I know you are but what am I" is a valid retort?
Blowing the shit outta GazaWhat do you mean "keep going?"
As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
Oh. Are you railing on about "false claims"? You who keep saying over and over and over that the Bible glorifies "child rape"?
Get outta town
It is now pretty obvious just what sort of mental deviant mintrut is.
Poor bastard
Countries chose whether to honor international law or not. It is non-binding.Since the world became civilized.
Israel Does not Have Right to Self-Defense in International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory
A state cannot simultaneously exercise control over territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is “foreign” and poses an exogenous national security threat. In doing precisely that, Israel is asserting rights that may be consistent with colonial domination but simply do not exist under international law.
In other words, you can't have your cake and eat it to, fuckhead!
So, the vids posted on online showing acts of brutality are just crisis actors, moonbeam?As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
So innocent angels started this murderous war? Yeah, right, but I don't think so.As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
she has abandoned this thread since what she posted was a straight up lie.So innocent angels started this murderous war? Yeah, right, but I don't think so.
You lie... go back to Riyadh, Fatima, so you can resume your career sucking Palestinian c--k...As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
Are you denying that babies were beheaded?As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
I sincerely hope that she and that Somali bitch get a particularly nasty visit from the Karma fairy someday.You wouldn't happen to be this person would you?
Israel-Hating Democrat Rashida Tlaib Confronted about Hamas Chopping Off Babies’ Heads – Refuses to Answer (VIDEO)
Israel-Hating Democrat Rashida Tlaib Confronted about Hamas Chopping Off Babies' Heads - Refuses to Answer (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
On Saturday Hamas terrorists killed over 1,000 Jews, injured thousands, and kidnapped an unknown number of Jews and foreigners.www.thegatewaypundit.com
Demafasict continue to make excuses for terrorist…news at 11As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
That should have said COULDN'T access the camps, not COULD. SorryNot just that, but if I remember correctly the Red Cross was passing information on the concentration camps through the Swiss. The Red Cross could access the camps, but they knew about them.