Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 35

 

2010-06-04 04:54:40
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7061|Moscow, Russia

nukchebi0 wrote:

Shahter wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Does your state controlled media ever say anything positive about the United States or is it still mired in delusions of Russia's Cold War grandeur?
depends on the media. why?
You sound indoctrinated.
i'll take that from you after you clean your own lawn.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If Iran hadn't signed the NPT, I don't think they would be under the same sort of pressure they are under today.
you are deluding yourself.
ORLY?

India.

Pakistan.

QED.
iran's nuclear program is not why it gets so much heat, it's just a convenient excuse.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The "problem" for them is, they did. Just as with North Korea, they did. Then they withdrew from it. Israel never signed it, so were never bound by it. It's a different dynamic and a different standard.
no it's not. it is only that way according to those who use it to push their own agenda.
No. It's that way according to how this thing called "international law" works. Look it up.
that "thing" doesn't work at all.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-06-04 05:21:51
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6610|New Haven, CT

Shahter wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Shahter wrote:


depends on the media. why?
You sound indoctrinated.
i'll take that from you after you clean your own lawn.
Clarify please. You certainly aren't suggesting I'm likewise manipulated by biased newsources, are you?
2010-06-04 05:27:25
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7061|Moscow, Russia

nukchebi0 wrote:

Shahter wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:


You sound indoctrinated.
i'll take that from you after you clean your own lawn.
Clarify please. You certainly aren't suggesting I'm likewise manipulated by biased newsources, are you?
no, i'm suggesting that all newsources are biased by definition.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-06-04 05:50:01
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

11 Bravo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

PS To rephrase, I actually enjoyed Israel and the Jewish culture - it's not really Israel I dislike: more like Zionism, settler mentality and their government/military.
the government is the people.  that is a very stupid statement and is not true....well it cant be true.  youre bias is unbelievable and is beyond transparent.
Actually not so much, Israel is another country where the govt is a shaky coalition held together with deals with the most extremist factions.

Very large parts of the Israeli population disagree with the govt, in the last election the relatively moderate party - Kadima - came first, but two extremist factions, - Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas - formed a coalition with right wing Likud and so formed a .

Yisrael Beitanu - "a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave path of Zev Jabotinsky", the founder of Revisionist Zionism"

Shas - "a political party in Israel, primarily representing Sephardic and Mizrahi Haredi Judaism"

So although the moderates 'won' the loony factions which came 3rd and 5th are dominating the country - and not doing a great job of it.

(Personally I think Israel has one of the worst systems of govt across the world)

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-06-04 06:05:32)

Fuck Israel
2010-06-04 05:53:25
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6285|Vortex Ring State

Shahter wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Shahter wrote:


i'll take that from you after you clean your own lawn.
Clarify please. You certainly aren't suggesting I'm likewise manipulated by biased newsources, are you?
no, i'm suggesting that all newsources are biased by definition.
very true, there is no such thing as impartial news, although some news sources are less biased than others.

and IMO, the settler mentality is dragging Israel down in the eyes of the international community, Muslim and non-Muslim.
2010-06-04 07:46:25
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6610|New Haven, CT

Shahter wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Shahter wrote:


i'll take that from you after you clean your own lawn.
Clarify please. You certainly aren't suggesting I'm likewise manipulated by biased newsources, are you?
no, i'm suggesting that all newsources are biased by definition.
Fortunately, we have newsources running the range of biases.
2010-06-04 08:18:19
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
By YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI

Jerusalem

The outcry in Israel over the operation against the Gaza flotilla has cut across political lines. Yet unlike the outrage being expressed abroad, the concern here is over tactics, not morality. "It's not enough to be right," wrote one liberal columnist in the daily Ma'ariv, "one also needs to be smart." The assumption that Israel was right to stop the flotilla—and right to maintain its siege on Hamas-led Gaza—is largely a given here.

Israel and the rest of the world seem to be speaking dissonant moral languages. How, Israelis wonder, can pro-Hamas activists wielding knives be confused for peace activists? What is pro-peace about strengthening Hamas's grip on Gaza and thereby reducing the likelihood of a two-state solution? For that matter, what is pro-Palestinian about condemning the people of Gaza to jihadist rule?

The disconnect between Israel and the international community begins with radically differing perceptions over why the peace process has faltered. Most Israelis believe that their country, under Labor and Kadima governments, made repeated efforts to achieve a two-state solution, only to be rebuffed by Palestinian leaders. The election of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, Israelis note, wasn't the cause of the breakdown of the peace process. It was the result. Even today, Fatah leaders continue to insist on the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel—rather than to a Palestinian state—thereby undermining Israel's Jewish majority. Fatah insists, in other words, that the price for a two-state solution is a one-state solution.

In principle, the Israeli mainstream has endorsed the two-state vision of the international community. Many in Israel, and not only on the left, argue that a Palestinian state is an existential need for Israel—to extricate it from growing pariah status, from the moral dilemmas of occupation, and from an untenable choice between its democratic and Jewish identities.

But at the same time, Israelis also define a Palestinian state as an existential threat. Israelis fear that an independent Palestine would be either unwilling or unable to control terrorists from attacking the Israeli heartland just over the West Bank border. Even primitive Qassam rockets could make normal life in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem impossible. Moreover, international condemnation of Israel's 2009 war against Hamas—initiated after Israel withdrew from Gaza and then endured three years of almost daily rocket attacks—has convinced Israelis that they would be denied world approval to re-invade the West Bank in response to terrorist provocation.

The growing estrangement between Israel and world opinion is a tragic negation of the Zionist vision. For Israel's founders, Zionism wasn't only about returning the Jews to their homeland but to the community of nations. The root cause of anti-Semitism, argued the 19th century proto-Zionist thinker Leon Pinsker, was the human fear of ghosts: The Jews, a disembodied people without a land, were haunting the nations. By "concretizing" the Jews and turning them from wanderers into a nation like any other, he predicted, the illness of anti-Semitism would be cured.

Now, though, it's the Jewish state that is the target for demonization. The result is a crisis of confidence among some Jews in Zionism's ability to keep them safe.

From its founding, the state of Israel, denied legitimacy by its Arab neighbors, has had to contend with diplomatic isolation. It responded with daring and creativity. In the 1950s, Israel dispatched agricultural advisers to Africa and Asia, becoming a role model for developing nations. Later, its high-tech industries helped shape a strategic alliance with India.

The low point in Israel's international stature occurred after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Under pressure from the Arab oil boycott, Third World countries severed relations with the Jewish state. At the U.N., PLO leader Yasser Arafat declared that Israel had no right to exist and received a standing ovation from the General Assembly. A year later, in 1975, the U.N. voted to declare Zionism a form of racism.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had instigated the anti-Zionism campaign, Israel's status abruptly changed. The Zionism-racism resolution was repealed. And by the early 1990s, Israel was maintaining relations with most of the non-Muslim world.

The Zionist vision of acceptance by the nations seemed finally on its way to being fulfilled. The result was a greater willingness among Israelis to take risks for peace, as expressed by the 1993 Oslo peace process.

Now, Israel's international status is perhaps even worse than it was in the 1970s. Anti-Israeli animus then was largely a result of political and economic motives. Today, however misguided, the moral outrage against Israel is real.

By appealing to the world's conscience, Israel's jihadist enemies have learned how to turn their relative powerlessness into a strategic asset. Israel is being increasingly forced to choose between self-defense and acceptance by the nations. The likely result will be a growing sense of empowerment among jihadists, and a growing sense of desperation among Israelis.

Israelis watch with cynical astonishment as the U.N. Security Council urgently convenes to create a Commission of Inquiry—yet another anti-Israel kangaroo court—even as the sanctions effort against Iran's nuclear program falters. They contrast the banner headlines in the world's media over the flotilla with the barely noted news item of recent days that Tehran now has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs. And as some self-described friends of Israel are publicly wondering whether the Jewish state needs to be "saved from itself," Israelis reciprocate the outrage and ask: Has the world lost its mind?

Mr. Klein Halevi is a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and a contributing editor to The New Republic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … lenews_wsj
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-04 08:19:48
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
And to those saying the raid was illegal...

By ERIC POSNER

Israel's raid on a fleet of activists bound for the Gaza Strip has led to wild accusations of illegality. But the international law applicable to the blockade eludes the grasp of those in search of easy answers.

The most serious charge is that by seizing control of the flotilla, Israel violated the freedom of ships to travel on the high seas. The basic law here is that states have jurisdiction over a 12-mile territorial sea and can take enforcement actions in an additional 12-mile contiguous zone, according to the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention (which Israel has not ratified, but which is generally regarded as reflecting customary international law). Outside that area, foreign ships can sail unmolested.

But there are exceptions. Longstanding customary international law permits states to enforce publicly announced blockades on the high seas. The Gaza blockade was known to all, and certainly to those who launched the ships for the very purpose of breaking it. The real question is whether the Israeli blockade is lawful. Blockades certainly are during times of war or armed conflict. The U.S.-led coalition imposed a blockade on Iraq during the first Gulf War.

The catch here is the meaning of "armed conflict." Traditionally, armed conflict can take place only between sovereign states. If Gaza were clearly a sovereign state, then Israel would be at war with Gaza and the blockade would be lawful. If, however, Gaza were just a part of Israel, Israel would have the right to control its borders— but not by intercepting foreign ships outside its 12-mile territorial sea or contiguous zone.

Gaza is not a sovereign state (although it has its own government, controlled by Hamas) and is not a part of Israel or of any other state. Its status is ambiguous, and so too is the nature of the armed conflict between Israel and Hamas. Thus there is no clear answer to the question whether the blockade is lawful.

However, the traditional idea of armed conflict involving only sovereign states has long given way to a looser definition that includes some conflicts between states and nonstate actors. The international rules governing blockades attempt to balance belligerents' interest in security and other countries' economic interests in shipping. During war, security interests prevail.

War-like conditions certainly exist between Israel and Hamas. And because Israel intercepts only self-identified blockade runners, its actions have little impact on neutral shipping. This balance is reflected in the traditional privilege of states to capture foreign pirates on the high seas.

So Israel's legal position is reasonable, and it has precedent. During the U.S. Civil War, the Union claimed to blockade the Confederacy while at the same time maintaining that the Confederacy was not a sovereign state but an agent of insurrection.

When the Union navy seized ships trying to run the blockade, their owners argued that a country cannot interfere with shipping on the high seas except during war, and one cannot be at war except with another sovereign state. The U.S. Supreme Court approved the captures in an ambiguous opinion that held that an armed conflict existed, even though one side was not a sovereign state. The opinion suggests a certain latitude for countries to use blockades against internal as well as external enemies.

Human Rights Watch argues that a blockade to strike at a terrorist organization constitutes a collective penalty against a civilian population, in violation of Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention. This argument won't stand up. Blockades and other forms of economic sanction are permitted in international law, which necessarily means that civilians will suffer through no fault of their own.

Most attention has focused on the question whether Israeli commandos used excessive force while taking control of one of the flotilla ships, which resulted in nine deaths. Human Rights Watch says that Israel's actions violated the 1990 United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. However, that document is not international law; its principles are akin to a set of "best practices" for advising countries with poorly trained police forces. It is also vague and it would not apply to a military operation.

Military operations must respect the principle of proportionality, which is a fuzzy, "know-it-when-you-see-it" test. But one thing is clear. Ships that run blockades may be attacked and sunk under international law. If Israel had exercised that right, far more than nine people would have been killed.

Mr. Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is the author of "The Perils of Global Legalism" (University of Chicago Press, 2009).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 84110.html
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-04 08:32:33
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6439|what

^a lot of twisting the rules in that

So Israel's legal position is reasonable, and it has precedent. During the U.S. Civil War, the Union claimed to blockade the Confederacy while at the same time maintaining that the Confederacy was not a sovereign state but an agent of insurrection. The U.S. Supreme Court approved the captures in an ambiguous opinion that held that an armed conflict existed, even though one side was not a sovereign state.
Seriously, that is considered precedent? Gimme a break.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-06-04 08:34:54
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6935

The second article is very interesting, and states pretty well what I've been saying. The whole thing is pretty confusing because of the status of Gaza, and not as clear cut as either side would have you believe.
2010-06-04 08:44:03
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7061|Moscow, Russia

nukchebi0 wrote:

Shahter wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:


Clarify please. You certainly aren't suggesting I'm likewise manipulated by biased newsources, are you?
no, i'm suggesting that all newsources are biased by definition.
Fortunately, we have newsources running the range of biases.
and we don't?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-06-04 08:53:13
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7061|Moscow, Russia

AussieReaper wrote:

^a lot of twisting the rules in that

So Israel's legal position is reasonable, and it has precedent. During the U.S. Civil War, the Union claimed to blockade the Confederacy while at the same time maintaining that the Confederacy was not a sovereign state but an agent of insurrection. The U.S. Supreme Court approved the captures in an ambiguous opinion that held that an armed conflict existed, even though one side was not a sovereign state.
Seriously, that is considered precedent? Gimme a break.
i agree. "israel didn't ratify a law, but it is generally regarded as reflecting customary international law", "longstanding customary international law", "armed conflict", "war-like conditions" - you must be shitting me.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-06-04 08:56:05
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7049|d
Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal

Six of the nine passengers killed in an Israeli raid on an aid convoy bound for Gaza were shot by a single Israeli commando, who is being considered for a medal of valour for saving his injured comrades
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 144099.ece

Can't say I expected any less from israel.

Last edited by mafia996630 (2010-06-04 09:03:46)

2010-06-04 09:00:14
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

^a lot of twisting the rules in that

So Israel's legal position is reasonable, and it has precedent. During the U.S. Civil War, the Union claimed to blockade the Confederacy while at the same time maintaining that the Confederacy was not a sovereign state but an agent of insurrection. The U.S. Supreme Court approved the captures in an ambiguous opinion that held that an armed conflict existed, even though one side was not a sovereign state.
Seriously, that is considered precedent? Gimme a break.
Could use the British blockade and occupation of Boston prior to the American Revolution as an example too if you want.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-04 09:10:05
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6285|Vortex Ring State

mafia996630 wrote:

Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal

Six of the nine passengers killed in an Israeli raid on an aid convoy bound for Gaza were shot by a single Israeli commando, who is being considered for a medal of valour for saving his injured comrades
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 144099.ece

Can't say I expected any less from israel.
Hey, General Dyer got a Parliamentary commendation after Amritsar.

I don't get the discussion over the legality of the raid, it's a grey area of international law, so there's no correct answer. Yet people continue to debate it to no end.
2010-06-04 09:30:44
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6823|Long Island, New York

mafia996630 wrote:

Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal

Six of the nine passengers killed in an Israeli raid on an aid convoy bound for Gaza were shot by a single Israeli commando, who is being considered for a medal of valour for saving his injured comrades
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 144099.ece

Can't say I expected any less from israel.
And once again you mysteriously pop up from the abyss when Israel's being blamed for something.

Agenda much?
2010-06-04 09:45:28
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6509|Escea

mafia996630 wrote:

Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal

Six of the nine passengers killed in an Israeli raid on an aid convoy bound for Gaza were shot by a single Israeli commando, who is being considered for a medal of valour for saving his injured comrades
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 144099.ece

Can't say I expected any less from israel.
Self defence and prevented more casualties in the long run.
2010-06-04 09:52:21
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7049|d

M.O.A.B wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal

Six of the nine passengers killed in an Israeli raid on an aid convoy bound for Gaza were shot by a single Israeli commando, who is being considered for a medal of valour for saving his injured comrades
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 144099.ece

Can't say I expected any less from israel.
Self defence and prevented more casualties in the long run.
Surly a better time could have been found to announce this ? A full investigation hasn't even started yet and already they're handing out medals.

israel just has a tendency to spit on everybody's faces.
2010-06-04 09:59:24
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6285|Vortex Ring State

M.O.A.B wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal

Six of the nine passengers killed in an Israeli raid on an aid convoy bound for Gaza were shot by a single Israeli commando, who is being considered for a medal of valour for saving his injured comrades
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 144099.ece

Can't say I expected any less from israel.
Self defence and prevented more casualties in the long run.
how is that possible to determine if the official investigation hasn't been finished? Also, you normally don't hand out medals for "self-defense" Lastly, I doubt that it prevented more casualties in the long run.
2010-06-04 10:02:10
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6509|Escea

mafia996630 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w … 144099.ece

Can't say I expected any less from israel.
Self defence and prevented more casualties in the long run.
Surly a better time could have been found to announce this ? A full investigation hasn't even started yet and already they're handing out medals.

israel just has a tendency to spit on everybody's faces.
I don't really see how its spitting on anyone's face. The flotilla passengers instigated a lethal response and the commando did his job. If he hadn't, more would be dead and the attacking passengers probably wouldn't have thought better of taking on guys with guns with pipes and knives.
2010-06-04 10:05:27
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6285|Vortex Ring State

M.O.A.B wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


Self defence and prevented more casualties in the long run.
Surly a better time could have been found to announce this ? A full investigation hasn't even started yet and already they're handing out medals.

israel just has a tendency to spit on everybody's faces.
I don't really see how its spitting on anyone's face. The flotilla passengers instigated a lethal response and the commando did his job. If he hadn't, more would be dead and the attacking passengers probably wouldn't have thought better of taking on guys with guns with pipes and knives.
tbh if he hadn't I bet we would have ended up with nobody dead and a bunch of commandos/protesters with broken bones. Or someone else would've opened fire.
2010-06-04 10:09:47
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6509|Escea

Trotskygrad wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:


Surly a better time could have been found to announce this ? A full investigation hasn't even started yet and already they're handing out medals.

israel just has a tendency to spit on everybody's faces.
I don't really see how its spitting on anyone's face. The flotilla passengers instigated a lethal response and the commando did his job. If he hadn't, more would be dead and the attacking passengers probably wouldn't have thought better of taking on guys with guns with pipes and knives.
tbh if he hadn't I bet we would have ended up with nobody dead and a bunch of commandos/protesters with broken bones. Or someone else would've opened fire.
I can't see that happening though, not with the way the passengers were attacking them. They weren't holding back at all, and we even stabbing them. If they weren't wearing helmets there would've be severe head injuries or trauma from those pipes/clubs/bars. This commando drew his weapon only to defend himself and others, some of whom had been shot. The six he shot I imagine were in the process of trying to attack him, hence why only they were shot and killed. After that, the other attackers probably thought better than to try again.
2010-06-04 10:14:04
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6935

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

^a lot of twisting the rules in that

So Israel's legal position is reasonable, and it has precedent. During the U.S. Civil War, the Union claimed to blockade the Confederacy while at the same time maintaining that the Confederacy was not a sovereign state but an agent of insurrection. The U.S. Supreme Court approved the captures in an ambiguous opinion that held that an armed conflict existed, even though one side was not a sovereign state.
Seriously, that is considered precedent? Gimme a break.
Could use the British blockade and occupation of Boston prior to the American Revolution as an example too if you want.
Given that international law practically didn't exist prior to the League of Nations, something slightly more current would be needed to be considered legal precedent; either of those examples is a tenuous link at best.
2010-06-04 10:14:14
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6285|Vortex Ring State

M.O.A.B wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:


I don't really see how its spitting on anyone's face. The flotilla passengers instigated a lethal response and the commando did his job. If he hadn't, more would be dead and the attacking passengers probably wouldn't have thought better of taking on guys with guns with pipes and knives.
tbh if he hadn't I bet we would have ended up with nobody dead and a bunch of commandos/protesters with broken bones. Or someone else would've opened fire.
I can't see that happening though, not with the way the passengers were attacking them. They weren't holding back at all, and we even stabbing them. If they weren't wearing helmets there would've be severe head injuries or trauma from those pipes/clubs/bars. This commando drew his weapon only to defend himself and others, some of whom had been shot. The six he shot I imagine were in the process of trying to attack him, hence why only they were shot and killed. After that, the other attackers probably thought better than to try again.
I dunno, people usually don't hold back on captured US soldiers, yet they survive a mob somehow.
2010-06-04 10:27:54
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

ghettoperson wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

^a lot of twisting the rules in that


Seriously, that is considered precedent? Gimme a break.
Could use the British blockade and occupation of Boston prior to the American Revolution as an example too if you want.
Given that international law practically didn't exist prior to the League of Nations, something slightly more current would be needed to be considered legal precedent; either of those examples is a tenuous link at best.
The blockade of Iraq during the Gulf War was cited and I previously cited the blockade of Haiti during the 90s. FEOS mentioned the blockade of Cuba during the Missile Crisis. It's just not something that happens with any regularity anymore since outside of the US and Russia, navies don't really exist anymore (yes, the RN still exists but it's a shadow of its former self).

If we were to blockade Somalia because of the incessant pirate attacks would you have an issue with it?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 35

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard