What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I mean, I had a great time in Hong Kong and my only issue with Singapore was how bloody expensive it is, so I'm not going to argue that I was made very welcome in both.
But I'm also living in a country that's very welcoming to everybody else, including people from Hong Kong, Singapore and indeed everywhere else. We've got entire fucking cities where the majority of the population are descended from Asian immigrants, we've got countless suburbs populated by immigrants from the Carribean and white native people are a minority in our own fucking capital.
Suit. It's a fucking suit. Your post was pretty much unreadable because fitting someone in a suite is pretty fucking easy: You open the door, they walk in, they choose whether to sit on the bed or the sofa.
"Hafrada" has nothing to do with the mainland nation itself. Nothing.
Israeli policies are nothing to do with Israel? That's an interesting argument you've posited there but it doesn't even pass the laugh test.
The "illegally held territories" are a result of an ILLEGAL INVASION where the neighbors wanted to WIPE OUT THE JEWS.
"Oh no, they're invading. Quick, invade and occupy their lands and settle them, forcing out their peoples" is illegal under international law. Stop making fucking excuses.
Yeah, it is like that, but that does not matter to you.
Indeed. Had Israel invaded, held for a period of 3-4 years to assure the threat had subsided then withdrawn they'd be in a far stronger moral position. They didn't.
You think that Jewish lives are worthless.
Could you quote the sentence or sentences that lead you to this erroneous conclusion because the only life I think is worthless is yours (and I don't know or care what race you are).
Don't want your land taken? Don't start a war! It really is that simple (to most people).
Don't want a war? Don't invade and occupy someone's land. The Palestinians do have cause to attack Israel.
But apparently staging an invasion shouldn't have any consequences.
That does indeed seem to be your view of Israel's invasion of Gaza and the West Bank, but I disagree.
Remember what happened to Germany after WW1 and WW2? Why is that OK, but this isn't?
Let's see, after WWI Germany was expected to pay reparations, leading to a damaged economy and resentment among the population which helped lead to WWII, after which Germany received assistance to rebuild.
I'm not sure this is terribly relevant to the current conversation. Perhaps you'd like to be more specific and also factor in the changes to international law since then.
So, why don't you care about the Palestinians killing Jewish civilians?
Could you quote the sentence or sentences that lead you to this erroneous conclusion? I also care about the Palestinians killing Israeli non-Jewish citizens and about Israelis killing Palestinians, because unlike you I'm not a racist.
Because Jewish lives are worthless.
Racist.
And you are complaining about the ONLY Jewish state in the entire world wanting to preserve Judaism. Muslims and Christians live peacefully in Israel.
Hmm. Why are you bringing religion into this? I don't give a fuck about Judaism and whether Israel wants to preserve it or not. I give a shit about Israel having racist laws that lead to apartheid, the proof of which you were denying exists.
There is no "apartheid" in other Muslim countries because non-Muslims are simply killed, so that is better.
Name me any Islamic country on the planet that has no people of other religions living in it? Seems to me they coexist pretty successfully pretty much everywhere.
But please, also stop trying to deflect the conversation away from the behaviour of Israel. If other countries have shit laws then sure, we can condemn them for it. Just like I'm condemning Israel for theirs. Or are you saying that because people in Papua New Guinea used to be cannibals then everyone else should be allowed to eat people?
Let me list the horrible things that Israel does: [etc]
Sorry but I'm not accepting an argument of "we're nice to women and homosexuals so accept our shit treatment of people that are the wrong race" unless you want me to go full fucking Godwin on you, because that's exactly where you're heading.
Yes, for all of these reasons, Israel is EVIL.
Grow a clue.
No, for the reasons I've mentioned Israel deserve international condemnation and censure. I don't need to grow a clue, and in fact I've been very generous here and shared some with you. Be graceful and learn quietly.
Proof of this? Seriously, I have seen this presented as "fact" without any actual proof.
I noticed you blithely ignored the very real evidence already posted regarding hafrada, in amongst justifying the murder of palestinian civilians.
But since you're still bleating on about proof: It's enshrined in their fucking law. Is that enough fucking proof for you? https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
What do you expect, for the Jews to just say "murder as many of us as you want?"
I don't give a flying fuck what the Jews do. I expect the Government of Israel to stop killing civilians, to withdraw from illegally held territories and to stop fucking settling in them, displacing the native populations.
What the fuck does that have to do with Jews you racist shit.
They can't just determine that not "enough" evidence exists, that's what a jury is for.
Erm. Sure they can.
It's pretty much the only way to have an affordable and sustainable justice system. Otherwise half the country would be on trial half the time.
E.g. almost nobody that drives has at no point committed an offence such as speeding, driving dangerously or driving without due care and attention (or whatever the US equivalents are). By your logic the police should charge the entire fucking country with driving offences and let juries sort it all out.
In reality the police wait until they have substantial evidence likely to achieve a conviction, because that's a rather more optimal use of resources (and much less likely to cause civil insurrection). In other words, they
just determine that not "enough" evidence exists
(a missing angle bracket broke my previous reply. 20 years of posting on Slashdot and I still don't hit preview)
Sadly no, it merely means that prosecutors in the US prioritise conviction rates at trial above justice. If that means they can bully someone into pleading guilty they will, if it means letting someone they can't bully go free because at trial they'd risk losing, they will.
So wealthy or hardened criminals walk free, poor people go to prison. It's not justice.
Why the fuck would I give a shit what a historian thinks about current affairs? They're way out of their speciality.
Ask historians fifty years from now where they rate Trump. It may or may not be dead last but with the benefit of objective impartiality I'm betting they disagree with the current crop.
Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."
Even taking this in the context only of the matters investigated by Mueller (necessary to avoid bursting into laughter) it's wrong.
You're getting into a very dangerous area when you want to classify people as "criminal but without sufficient evidence to support the claim."
No, you're acting like normal people.
This is a nation of laws, not a mob
Exactly. The law does not prevent me from deciding you're a criminal. It does prevent me inciting violence against you because of my beliefs.
How would you respond if someone called you a criminal in a public forum with intent of destroying your character or livelihood but lacked evidence to support it?
Depends on context, but I do live in a country with strong defamation laws so I could if needed use the law to respond appropriately.
I doubt you'd like anyone entertaining the idea that you were a criminal despite there being insufficient evidence.
Well, it depends what they want to do about it. My mother is a magistrate and thinks I'm a criminal but knows she's got no direct evidence to prove it. I don't hate her for it.
The lesson here is never allow fudging just because it takes down someone you don't like The gun can easily point the other way, and it's inevitable that sooner or later someone who does not share your views will do exactly that. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.
Again I think context is needed. In Trump's situation grandiose claims are being made and a very expensive and very public legal investigation has been undertaken to determine whether those claims are justified. It may well be that the report describes behaviours that are illegal but fail to provide adequate evidence to prove in a criminal court that they took place.
That doesn't mean that they didn't take place, and sadly the US will be full of idiots claiming that they did and idiots claiming that they're lies. Everyone else will be shrugging, deciding Trump probably isn't angelically pure and voting in the next presidential election based on the policies, campaign expenditure and hairstyle of the candidates, because that's what Americans do.
Despite the picture that Trump was painting as this being an open ended witch hunt looking at anything and everything to bring him down, it very much was not.
Then why did the summary of all things state that they couldn't find anything to hang on Trump but that they don't think he's innocent anyway.
There are 350 million other Americans they didn't find anything to hang on either but they didn't all get name checked as "probably not innocent, we just can't prove it".
Breaking election finance rules is not fraud. Stop talking shit.
Also bear in mind that the Remain camp spent more than the Leave camp, even after the illegal expenditure. That doesn't even fucking include the £9.3m the Government spent on a fucking Remain leaflet that wasn't even included as a campaign expenditure.
So I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the additional Leave expenditure changed the result of the referendum.
This fact alone could well account for more than the difference between the leave and remain vote.
No, it could not.
People on holiday could plan ahead and register for a postal vote, so didn't lose the ability to vote. People living abroad were able to vote. People that had been living abroad for an extensive period and thus unable to vote could all have voted remain and still not boosted the numbers enough to win.
Maybe, next time, you will think before you type.
I didn't just think, I did the research too. Which is why I know you're wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's my fucking reparations for centuries of colonisation and slavery inflicted on the world by Africans?
Come on, fucking hand it over. I need it to pay the reparations you're demanding.
Racism was invented by white people for white people
Oh look, a racist trying to redefine racism to hide their racism.
Homophobia, unhinged insults, desire to murder people based on your own prejudice... You appear to be acting like a nazi.
But don't kill yourself. Even idiots are allowed to live.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I mean, I had a great time in Hong Kong and my only issue with Singapore was how bloody expensive it is, so I'm not going to argue that I was made very welcome in both.
But I'm also living in a country that's very welcoming to everybody else, including people from Hong Kong, Singapore and indeed everywhere else. We've got entire fucking cities where the majority of the population are descended from Asian immigrants, we've got countless suburbs populated by immigrants from the Carribean and white native people are a minority in our own fucking capital.
Sounds pretty welcoming to me.
You appear to be asking the wrong person.
Suit. It's a fucking suit. Your post was pretty much unreadable because fitting someone in a suite is pretty fucking easy: You open the door, they walk in, they choose whether to sit on the bed or the sofa.
Now firt off and buy a fucking keyboard.
No. Which part of this is hard to fucking understand?
I am totally okay with a bulb costing me 30 cents more a year
Kruse's narrative does not need to be correct for people to take precaution
This is very true, and is why I only use my LED lightbulbs when I want something illuminating.
Surely this makes it even easier to claim. Just send them used receipt roll.
They didn't mandate that the receipt be readable.
"Hafrada" has nothing to do with the mainland nation itself. Nothing.
Israeli policies are nothing to do with Israel? That's an interesting argument you've posited there but it doesn't even pass the laugh test.
The "illegally held territories" are a result of an ILLEGAL INVASION where the neighbors wanted to WIPE OUT THE JEWS.
"Oh no, they're invading. Quick, invade and occupy their lands and settle them, forcing out their peoples" is illegal under international law. Stop making fucking excuses.
Yeah, it is like that, but that does not matter to you.
Indeed. Had Israel invaded, held for a period of 3-4 years to assure the threat had subsided then withdrawn they'd be in a far stronger moral position. They didn't.
You think that Jewish lives are worthless.
Could you quote the sentence or sentences that lead you to this erroneous conclusion because the only life I think is worthless is yours (and I don't know or care what race you are).
Don't want your land taken? Don't start a war! It really is that simple (to most people).
Don't want a war? Don't invade and occupy someone's land. The Palestinians do have cause to attack Israel.
But apparently staging an invasion shouldn't have any consequences.
That does indeed seem to be your view of Israel's invasion of Gaza and the West Bank, but I disagree.
Remember what happened to Germany after WW1 and WW2? Why is that OK, but this isn't?
Let's see, after WWI Germany was expected to pay reparations, leading to a damaged economy and resentment among the population which helped lead to WWII, after which Germany received assistance to rebuild.
I'm not sure this is terribly relevant to the current conversation. Perhaps you'd like to be more specific and also factor in the changes to international law since then.
So, why don't you care about the Palestinians killing Jewish civilians?
Could you quote the sentence or sentences that lead you to this erroneous conclusion? I also care about the Palestinians killing Israeli non-Jewish citizens and about Israelis killing Palestinians, because unlike you I'm not a racist.
Because Jewish lives are worthless.
Racist.
And you are complaining about the ONLY Jewish state in the entire world wanting to preserve Judaism. Muslims and Christians live peacefully in Israel.
Hmm. Why are you bringing religion into this? I don't give a fuck about Judaism and whether Israel wants to preserve it or not. I give a shit about Israel having racist laws that lead to apartheid, the proof of which you were denying exists.
There is no "apartheid" in other Muslim countries because non-Muslims are simply killed, so that is better.
Name me any Islamic country on the planet that has no people of other religions living in it? Seems to me they coexist pretty successfully pretty much everywhere.
But please, also stop trying to deflect the conversation away from the behaviour of Israel. If other countries have shit laws then sure, we can condemn them for it. Just like I'm condemning Israel for theirs. Or are you saying that because people in Papua New Guinea used to be cannibals then everyone else should be allowed to eat people?
Let me list the horrible things that Israel does: [etc]
Sorry but I'm not accepting an argument of "we're nice to women and homosexuals so accept our shit treatment of people that are the wrong race" unless you want me to go full fucking Godwin on you, because that's exactly where you're heading.
Yes, for all of these reasons, Israel is EVIL.
Grow a clue.
No, for the reasons I've mentioned Israel deserve international condemnation and censure. I don't need to grow a clue, and in fact I've been very generous here and shared some with you. Be graceful and learn quietly.
Proof of this? Seriously, I have seen this presented as "fact" without any actual proof.
I noticed you blithely ignored the very real evidence already posted regarding hafrada, in amongst justifying the murder of palestinian civilians.
But since you're still bleating on about proof: It's enshrined in their fucking law. Is that enough fucking proof for you?
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
What do you expect, for the Jews to just say "murder as many of us as you want?"
I don't give a flying fuck what the Jews do. I expect the Government of Israel to stop killing civilians, to withdraw from illegally held territories and to stop fucking settling in them, displacing the native populations.
What the fuck does that have to do with Jews you racist shit.
They can't just determine that not "enough" evidence exists, that's what a jury is for.
Erm. Sure they can.
It's pretty much the only way to have an affordable and sustainable justice system. Otherwise half the country would be on trial half the time.
E.g. almost nobody that drives has at no point committed an offence such as speeding, driving dangerously or driving without due care and attention (or whatever the US equivalents are). By your logic the police should charge the entire fucking country with driving offences and let juries sort it all out.
In reality the police wait until they have substantial evidence likely to achieve a conviction, because that's a rather more optimal use of resources (and much less likely to cause civil insurrection). In other words, they
just determine that not "enough" evidence exists
(a missing angle bracket broke my previous reply. 20 years of posting on Slashdot and I still don't hit preview)
They can't just determine that not "enough" evidence exists, that's what a jury is for.
just determine that not "enough" evidence exists
Sadly no, it merely means that prosecutors in the US prioritise conviction rates at trial above justice. If that means they can bully someone into pleading guilty they will, if it means letting someone they can't bully go free because at trial they'd risk losing, they will.
So wealthy or hardened criminals walk free, poor people go to prison. It's not justice.
Why the fuck would I give a shit what a historian thinks about current affairs? They're way out of their speciality.
Ask historians fifty years from now where they rate Trump. It may or may not be dead last but with the benefit of objective impartiality I'm betting they disagree with the current crop.
Either a crime was committed or not. If there is sufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction then a crime was committed. Anything short of that constitutes "not a crime."
Even taking this in the context only of the matters investigated by Mueller (necessary to avoid bursting into laughter) it's wrong.
You're getting into a very dangerous area when you want to classify people as "criminal but without sufficient evidence to support the claim."
No, you're acting like normal people.
This is a nation of laws, not a mob
Exactly. The law does not prevent me from deciding you're a criminal. It does prevent me inciting violence against you because of my beliefs.
How would you respond if someone called you a criminal in a public forum with intent of destroying your character or livelihood but lacked evidence to support it?
Depends on context, but I do live in a country with strong defamation laws so I could if needed use the law to respond appropriately.
I doubt you'd like anyone entertaining the idea that you were a criminal despite there being insufficient evidence.
Well, it depends what they want to do about it. My mother is a magistrate and thinks I'm a criminal but knows she's got no direct evidence to prove it. I don't hate her for it.
The lesson here is never allow fudging just because it takes down someone you don't like The gun can easily point the other way, and it's inevitable that sooner or later someone who does not share your views will do exactly that. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else.
Again I think context is needed. In Trump's situation grandiose claims are being made and a very expensive and very public legal investigation has been undertaken to determine whether those claims are justified. It may well be that the report describes behaviours that are illegal but fail to provide adequate evidence to prove in a criminal court that they took place.
That doesn't mean that they didn't take place, and sadly the US will be full of idiots claiming that they did and idiots claiming that they're lies. Everyone else will be shrugging, deciding Trump probably isn't angelically pure and voting in the next presidential election based on the policies, campaign expenditure and hairstyle of the candidates, because that's what Americans do.
Despite the picture that Trump was painting as this being an open ended witch hunt looking at anything and everything to bring him down, it very much was not.
Then why did the summary of all things state that they couldn't find anything to hang on Trump but that they don't think he's innocent anyway.
There are 350 million other Americans they didn't find anything to hang on either but they didn't all get name checked as "probably not innocent, we just can't prove it".
"turn into" ?
(posting with no karma bonus because this one's going to hurt)
The alt-right isn't a political movement
Correct. It's a label used to demonise vast swathes of people most of whom have committed the cardinal sin of daring to disagree with others.
Disparage the idiots cheering on an act of murder. Just don't lazily use stupid labels that are applied to many innocent people too.
unjustified usage of obscenities (that's the guy, the girl so far did not cuss)
For what it's worth, they're both men.
But really, what the fuck is unjustified about using obscenities? And what sort of cunt uses the term cuss?
When I go on holiday with friends I always find time to be alone.
Not everybody is extrovert.
Breaking election finance rules is not fraud. Stop talking shit.
Also bear in mind that the Remain camp spent more than the Leave camp, even after the illegal expenditure. That doesn't even fucking include the £9.3m the Government spent on a fucking Remain leaflet that wasn't even included as a campaign expenditure.
So I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that the additional Leave expenditure changed the result of the referendum.
Let us add into UK law that we need to renew our membership of Europe by referendum. Let's have one tomorrow and then one every 25 years.
Wait, we had one in 2016. So surely you should be supporting one in 2041.
Unless you refuse to accept the result and want to keep re-running referendums until you win. But you already said you're pro-EU so I guess you do.
This fact alone could well account for more than the difference between the leave and remain vote.
No, it could not.
People on holiday could plan ahead and register for a postal vote, so didn't lose the ability to vote.
People living abroad were able to vote.
People that had been living abroad for an extensive period and thus unable to vote could all have voted remain and still not boosted the numbers enough to win.
Maybe, next time, you will think before you type.
I didn't just think, I did the research too. Which is why I know you're wrong.
Fraud is illegal. If you have proof of fraud you should inform the police so that they can prosecute.
Off you toddle.
Hopefully, people who understand the issues.
Good fucking luck finding them.