Who's "that person" huh buddy huh I wanna hear you say it
similarly to your pronouns, i have no interest in looking at your name and copying and pasting it here. Im taking it on faith you know who im talking about
Who's "that person" huh buddy huh I wanna hear you say it
Cowardsimilarly to your pronouns, i have no interest in looking at your name and copying and pasting it here. Im taking it on faith you know who im talking about
Coward
Clearly you have missed the point. You should educate yourself before you argue your point.Yes i absolutely rejected op eds from someone who worked at nat geo once you are 100% right.
Look it would really be alot easier for you to see the part where i admit that im wrong about everything in my life and that person is right and then we can have a grown up conversation, i really have no interest in who freed or helped who, im wrong, thats wonderful, lets all be mature and get back on track.
So true bestieonce again you are 1000% right, as with everything
Clearly you have missed the point. You should educate yourself before you argue your point.
If you have no interest in learning what is true and what is false, you can not truly fathom what is just.
You're embarrassing yourselfNo no i understood what they were trying to say but its like that person said
Okay I don't even know what you're talking about at this pointpeepee poopoo
Okay I don't even know what you're talking about at this point
cheers and gn matei dont know but i must be like that person in that book because i didnt say that
Did it affect anyone present? Whether something is peaceful or not comes down to whether there was conflict, you can't have one sided conflict.
The thing is there is no simple answerHow about you just answer the question with a simple answer, instead of with another question? Thanks.
rereading through this thread and this comment is so good lmaoif we all just stand in a park and sing jambalaya then they can just ignore us
I don't really want to get into a debate but by this logic do you consider the US military to be a terrorist organization? Do you consider Capitalist imperialist organizations like the IMF or World Bank to be terrorists? Why or why not?And any group that exists outside of your nation that's funded by foreign nations to impose their views on your nation is terroristic regardless of how they refer to themselves ex: blm.
For Military no, Their existence is to serve to protect. They don't do anything without approval of the government and the president. To go against their government/President is treason. Banks don't hold loyalty to a individual nation they can work with a country, but I never seen them as terrorists.(Their neutral) Transferring wealth out of the country by individuals damages the dollar, but that's not a fault of the bank doing their job. Only the fault of the country being a importer instead of being an exporter.I don't really want to get into a debate but by this logic do you consider the US military to be a terrorist organization? Do you consider Capitalist imperialist organizations like the IMF or World Bank to be terrorists? Why or why not?
I know I do
This but unironically. Like five people can set a city on fire if they have enough molotovs. And generally police are lax about these things because either they're the target of the protest, or they want to prove some sort of point.Peaceful protesting = mobs of leftists
"Mostly" peaceful protesting = The city is literally on fire
How about you just answer the question with a simple answer, instead of with another question? Thanks.