Fuck off back to your hate site you sniveling incompetent. None of these “suspect” actions are actually suspect, and I can tell you don’t know a goddamn thing you didn’t crib from some neo-Nazi aligned anti-Muslim hate group. The CAIR reference in pretty bloody obvious what conspiracy theory blogs you read.
Explore our other sites
GearoidDubh(LostHisBurnerKey)
gearoiddubh2
This is sickening. It’s a plain violation of US law. This is abusing asylum seekers, a heavily protected class under both US and international law.
This could almost be a campaign ad for her. Cramer doesn’t realize that CEOs and big banks and corporations are hugely unpopular in anything but the most abstract terms. People like the abstract idea of capitalism, they don’t like the reality, and the number of people who plan their votes based on who is friendliest…
I don’t know, while there’s definitely some in the blob who support those things, there’s a lot of others in the foreign policy community who oppose the broad AUMF and its usage, the war in Yemen, and military aid to human rights abusers. Even if you’re talking about State, though aren’t uncommon opinions. It’s really…
Cost-benefit analysis makes me think otherwise. The value of a UK in the EU, especially after all the chaos, probably outweighs any desire for retribution beyond some symbolic actions or minor substantive actions.
Shock to the head from that angle is tough. The neck isn’t really designed to stop shock from the top. The guys on the broadcast had it right; that’s a worrying hit. Not intentional or anything, but it’s dangerous. Humans, in general, aren’t great at absorbing force from that angle. The helmet probably helped, but a…
The EU gains nothing from Brexit. If, a big if, there’s a plausible attempt to revoke Article 50 plus possibly a few concessions as well, probably more on the symbolic than substantive side, the EU would probably take it. They are pissed, and they’ve got a right to be, but the hard fact is that a UK in the EU is…
Answer. The. Question.
Answer the question you worthless troll. I never said I like the Lib Dems. I correctly noted they have taken an anti-Brexit position Labour had failed to claim. That’s indisputable fact.
When, precisely, did Corbyn commit to “preventing Brexit”? Give me a date and citations. He’s been the one claiming Labour needs to support Brexit because of a non-binding referendum!
Explain precisely why the Lib Dems should’ve backed a pro-Brexit politician? I’m serious. Stop being a worthless bloody troll and put down some substance you damnable coward.
Your man here is very interested in not admitting that Corbyn has never been anti-Brexit and the only reason the Lib Dems could seize the “repeal Article 50" position is because Corbyn spent years running away from it with vehemence.
This pissy little troll is now dismissing the responses that make him look less special and intelligent than he feels. Bloody mature.
Corbyn has repeatedly refused to take an anti-Brexit position, despite widespread anger in Labour outside of his more loyal cadres.
Please note this explicit evidence that he/she did not read the article, which contains far more than that and which explicitly supports my point about Corbyn and his pro-Brexit bullshit.
I know what I’m talking about. Your man there, well, he’s less informed than he thinks. Or more biased than he realizes. Regardless you might want to reconsider.
Also, I don’t think anyone who thinks Corbyn is anti-Brexit has any damn business claiming I don’t know what I’m talking about. Labour has pissed away so many chances to take the anti-Brexit position under him.
Preferable, but it won’t happen because there’s too many incentives against such a straight answer.
You know the Lib Dems have changed leadership since then, right? The previous leader was far more Brexit friendly than the current leader. I’m responding to recent news.