2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +2 / -0

It doesn't seem to me that this is a credible channel nor one that should be promoted. Looks like an Israeli asset channel.

https://www.youtube.com/@MilkBarTV/videos

That said, obviously I take everything Candace Owens says with a giant mountain of salt.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

If Anita Sarkesian came out and started talking shit about Jews tonight, you'd have a shit ton of people right here on KiA2 fighting each other to lick her dirty vag sweat by tomorrow morning.

I'm pretty sure that she is very anti-Israel, which some people call "talking shit about Jews".

4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +4 / -0

They agreed that the Strait would be under Iranian management. Iran shot at ships that were violating this norm by not co-ordinating with Iranian security. It's common sense. They were allowed to get out without being shot at, they just had to inform the IRGC Navy and get clearance.

It's not "Jewish mind control", but Israel is clearly pushing its assets in the US (including Trump) to restart the war for the benefit of Israel and Israel alone.

5
AntonioOfVenice 5 points ago +5 / -0

No such promise was ever made by Iran. On the contrary, the MoU clearly states that the Strait will be under Iranian management, and that no fees will be charged for the first 60 days.

On the other hand, Trump has repeatedly violated the MoU on his side. For one, he has repeatedly threatened Iran. He has also been unwilling to force Israel to respect Lebanon's territorial integrity.

2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +2 / -0

and there's every indication he's incredibly frustrated with Israel.

Not enough to not re-enter a war for them. Who knows to what extent that supposed frustration is just play-acting?

That $250 million goes a long way.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

OK, fine, but can you explain to me why Trump puts his own name in quotation marks?

2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think it's more that Iran is part of the 'Axis of Resistance'. In Iran, it coincides with being Islamists. But let's not forget the secularists who were resisting the Empire, namely Nasser and Assad.

Islamic countries generally aren't full of porn and feminism, regardless of whether theyr'e secular or not. Secular is a very relative term in Islamic countries.

3
AntonioOfVenice 3 points ago +3 / -0

Can you blame them? The Dow is over 50,000 again, so time to shut up about pedos.

10
AntonioOfVenice 10 points ago +10 / -0

And there's simps in the comments arguing that the women deserve the money because they played a few more games than the men in their regular season

The simps are not wrong. Why shouldn't the women get paid for all the losing matches they play against 14-year-old boys?

2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +2 / -0

Professional male soccer players in the USA

FTFY. I'm often surprised at just how stupid our world is, but I doubt any other country is like this.

4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +4 / -0

Elliot Page is the second one, right? Because I heard that he is a REAL man, a stronk man.

18
AntonioOfVenice 18 points ago +18 / -0

The 'human' quoted here:

Dr. Eviane Leidig - My expertise is on online hate movements, gender and violent misogyny, conspiracy theories, mis/disinformation, and the mainstreaming of far-right ideology

In other words, you're a professional useless person and regime goon.

Imagine having your parents hate you so much that they name you after bottled water...

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Eh, I don't find it very persuasive but I'm glad 4 justices did...

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Clearly, and with argument.

BTW, Europe doesn't have birthright citizenship, so we're clearly doing something right.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

The part where men creating a nation never thought things would get so retarded that they would have to painstakingly detail basic concepts like nation and citizen.

Ironically, this is something where the leftist idea of "IT WAS A DIFFERENT TIME, IT DOESN'T COUNT" would actually hold some water. It was a different time, because to go to America, you had to go on a ship with a 10% mortality rate, pay a lot and wait weeks. Now you can just get a plane ticket and have a quick, ultrasafe journey. They probably couldn't even imagine the idea of 'anchor babies', because the thing wasn't even practical at the time.

No one arguing your side of this debate

Wait, do you actually think that I support birthright citizenship? You know that not a single European country has this, right?

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Aren't you subject to the jurisdiction by mere fact of being there? If a citizen of Belarus goes to the US, he will be prosecuted, not delivered back to Belarus for jurisdiction.

I remember researching this at the time because this sounded vaguely plausible, but AFAIK this is diplomats and Indian tribes.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

To be clear: you think we need to choose between "everyone can pop out a kid on our soil and that kid is automatically a citizen of this country" and "you can't enforce your own laws on your own land if the perpetrator is foreign born".

No, I think birthright citizenship is really stupid, and not just for anchor babies.

But as far as I understand it, that's what "under the jurisdiction of" means.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

This?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

What exactly am I ignoring?

5
AntonioOfVenice 5 points ago +5 / -0

Me trying to cope: eh, this sounds wild, probably made up. No way it's real.

Me looking at line 2: "A video of the alleged gang-rape also found in one of the accused’s phone"

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because quite clearly, 'under the jurisdiction of' includes illegals. If an illegal commits a crime, where will he be prosecuted? Illegals are not like diplomats or red Indians.

view more: Next ›