thirdplace posted:they charged a marine with the murder. hoo-rah!?
Justice here. ‘Multiple System’ doesn’t refer to a physical bodily system, but the co-habitation of one body by two or more beings.
swampman posted:In my humbile opinion, should be a place on the front page for link dump posts like this, they're suer informative and make Strong case. mine into the past to explore a recurring theme. this might also encourage people to do something a little more like "research"
and you can include all the link from a thread, not just from a single post. IDEa
Goethestein posted:My wife and I are now in a sushi place and there's like 30 Japanese ppl here giving us the stinkeye because of either my whiteness, my wife's koreanness, or miscegenation. AMA
tell them you succeeded where they failed: you conquered a korean.
The author and former Navy SEAL who was one of two men slain at a Texas gun range was the defendant in a defamation lawsuit by former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura.
Ventura sued "American Sniper" author Chris Kyle in federal court in Minnesota over a portion of the book that claims Kyle decked Ventura in a 2006 bar fight over unpatriotic remarks he claimed Ventura made.
Ventura, who's also an ex-SEAL, contends the punch never happened.
Kyle's Minneapolis attorney, John Borger, said he's "shocked and terribly saddened" by Kyle's death. He also told the St. Paul Pioneer Press it's "way too early" to determine how it will affect the lawsuit.
Texas authorities have charged a suspect with murder in Saturday's shootings of the 38-year-old Kyle and the other man.
Goethestein posted:My wife and I are now in a sushi place and there's like 30 Japanese ppl here giving us the stinkeye because of either my whiteness, my wife's koreanness, or miscegenation. AMA
what kind of tip are you going to leave
thirdplace posted:they charged a marine with the murder. hoo-rah!?
they should charge a marine with electricity
"Our ROEs (Rules of Engagement) when the (Iraq War) kicked off were pretty simple: If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ’em. Kill every male you see. That wasn’t the official language, but that was the idea."
–Chris Kyle
Edited by HenryKrinkle ()
-iraqi men and boys age 12-65
ilmdge posted:Goethestein posted:My wife and I are now in a sushi place and there's like 30 Japanese ppl here giving us the stinkeye because of either my whiteness, my wife's koreanness, or miscegenation. AMA
what kind of tip are you going to leave
my waitress was nice. excellent all you can eat sushi, racist clientele, parking difficult. 4/5
discipline posted:oh no look who feels uncomfortable when people stare at him thinking he is a savage. it's mister "I'm gonna stare at women I don't know because I think they're savages"
that's not fair, they're slaves, not savages
Goethestein posted:discipline posted:oh no look who feels uncomfortable when people stare at him thinking he is a savage. it's mister "I'm gonna stare at women I don't know because I think they're savages"
that's not fair, they're slaves, not savages
look, not every woman fits your special relationship with the poor lady you kidnapped from the DPRK
Crow posted:look, not every woman fits your special relationship with the poor lady you kidnapped from the DPRK
let's try to cool it with the racist jokes. you've been warned.
Crow posted:
lol shooting someone due to primate dominance hierarchy conflict, he's a real Iraqi avenger, very "cool"
FSAD posted:Crow posted:lol shooting someone due to primate dominance hierarchy conflict, he's a real Iraqi avenger, very "cool"
A man and his dog walk into a bar. The man proclaims, "I'll bet you a round of drinks that my dog can talk."
Bartender: "Yeah! Sure...go ahead."
Man: "What covers a house?"
Dog: "Roof!"
Man: "How does sandpaper feel?"
Dog: "Rough!"
Man: "Who was the greatest ex-Marine of all time?"
Dog: "Routh!"
Man: "Pay up. I told you he could talk."
The bartender, annoyed at this point, throws both of them out the door. Sitting on the sidewalk, the dog looks at the guy and says, "should I have said Lee Harvey Oswald?"
Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.
Goethestein posted:Chomsky:
Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.
er seriously though, follwing the law for the sake of ofllowing The Law is so ridiculous
littlegreenpills posted:what's the "stinkeye" and how do you give it to people
a concerned squint.
