Oh, definitely. I am sure Harvard will weather any relatively minor to medium issues fine. This included.

“Lemon’s alleged, long-term relationship with a 22-year-old employee around 15 years ago when he was 41. Per the outlet:”

Kind of surprised the police present didn’t just claim trespassing and start arresting the protestors. What was the point of allowing the bailiffs to run wild.

“Private school, private machinations.”

I too would like to use a rifle (though not having permits for an actual assault rifle I would have to settle for something like an AR-15) to shoot some Bud Light beer. But just because I think it tastes like watered down piss (more of a Rolling Rock/ Heineken fan).

So does Latinx in this context include all people of Latino and Hispanic heritage (minus spain)? Or do they count across all races? Would a person of black Brazilian descent count towards both percentages?

“You’re working with a definition that isn’t meaningful. As you continue to talk about it in the rest of these comments, your definition becomes so broad and convoluted that it’s unintelligible from any kind of political violence.”

I get that concept with domestic animals like dogs. But I mean gators seem a little simple (for lack of a better term). I mean I doubt this one was any more likely to go out and kill a person than it already was (which I assume given the chance was relatively high). But I’m not a zoologist, so I could very well be…

Horrible. Hope the father goes away forna long time. But as an aside I don’t get the point of euthanizing the alligator.

I mean, what was the joke? Why should we take the youtubers word that it was harmless? I’m sure the one who got killed try to scare and random guy would also thought it was harmless.

“Give one example of a military giving up a war because their morale was low and they had a tarnished view of themselves. That has never happened and will never happen. Wars don’t end because the common soldier feels bad they end because the generals and politicians decide that the costs outweigh the benefits.”

I hope when they inevitably fail to meet the goals of the agreement that the court is indeed used to enforce it.

I would say more of an explanation of my view on it and less of an excuse. I don’t think I’ve done anything here that needs excused.

Well I don’t agree with you on 2 reasons.

I don’t think anything is wrong with me. As I said it’s a public muesum (meaning any patron has an equal right to enjoy the muesum) and I don’t find someone laughing at an art exhibit to be inherently racist or wrong. And depending on volume I don’t think it should really have been a problem.

It doesn’t. And sure you can terrorize a military into defeat. It basically just requires continued asymmetric pressure to sap morale and tarnish thier views of themselves and support for whatever war is happening. Guerilla warfare isn’t necessarily terrorism though (as it’s definition doesn’t necessarily exclude…

Thanks but I am quite content with fucking myself. And while I clearly view by statement as correct and at least moderately intelligent, I'm surprised you would think that it's breaching maximum stupidity, with the bull that comes out of MTG's mouth.

No, attacking civilians is generally not required by most definitions.

“Actually, “they” can only do this to you if you commit crimes.”

I would argue that violence against civilians isn’t required (it’s unfortunately common though).