2019-05-04 at 12:35 AM UTC
in
Drinking Rose
Originally posted by Number13
Why don't you lick my taint first?
I don't think there would be a fight after that, good call.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
Originally posted by Number13
Then what's the point of your thread, nigga?
Fact is the us are behind the curve on most tech development, so even if this were real other countries would have done it first and for cheaper.
If it worked I'd doubt the patent would be released publicly; it has enormous implications for any vehicle, including missiles. The fact that the design has been released publicly but a proof of concept has not means it's likely been deemed a dead end for R&D.
Essentially what the design is is a thermos; two shells, one inside the other, with both shells electrified and a microwave system set up to radiate waves into the vacuum between them. I don't see how that could affect the mass of what's contained within given our current physics paradigms but there's a lot of theoretical stuff in there that'd take a LONG time to interpret without a background in it
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-05-01 at 1:42 AM UTC
in
Drinking Rose
Fair enough lol. Rosé doesn't taste like roses, the name comes from it's color, not its taste. It's just like a "half way to being red" style of wine.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-04-29 at 8:55 PM UTC
in
Drinking Rose
Originally posted by Number13
I don't drink soft ass shit so I wouldn't know.
cos u prefer firm logs?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
A FEDERAL COURT IN TEXAS issued a ruling on Thursday afternoon preliminarily enjoining enforcement of Texas’ law banning contractors from boycotting Israel. The court ruled that the law plainly violates the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. Following similar decisions by federal courts in Kansas and Arizona, the ruling becomes the third judicial finding – out of three who have evaluated the constitutionality of such laws – to conclude that they are unconstitutional attacks on the free speech rights of Americans.
The case was brought by Bahia Amawi, a longtime elementary school speech pathologist in Austin, Texas, whose contract renewal was denied due to her refusal to sign an oath certifying that she does not participate in any boycotts of Israel. In December, The Intercept was the first to report on her case and the lawsuit she brought, and also produced a video documenting her story:
Amawi, a U.S. citizen and mother of four U.S.-born children, was required to sign the pro-Israel oath due to a new law enacted with almost no dissent by the Texas State Legislature in May 2017, and signed into law two days later by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott. When signing the bill, Gov. Abbott proclaimed: “Any anti-Israel policy is an anti-Texas policy.”
But this was precisely the mentality, along with the virtually unanimous pro-Israel sentiment in the Texas State Legislature, that the Texas federal judge identified when explaining why the pro-Israel oath so blatantly violates the free speech guarantees of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment:
In Texas, only five legislators voted against H.B. 89. (Texas Resp. Mots. Prelim. Inj., Dkt. 25, at 4). Texas touts these numbers as the statute’s strength. They are, rather, its weakness. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). “[T]he purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular[,]” is “to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hands of an intolerant society.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995).
Thus, “our citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech” in public debate. Boos, 485 U.S. at 322. They must do so “in order to provide ‘adequate breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Id. (citing Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 56 (1988)). With H.B. 89, Texas compresses this space. The statute threatens “to suppress unpopular ideas” and “manipulate the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” Turner, 512 U.S. at 641. This the First Amendment does not allow.
The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman, categorically rejected each of Texas’ justifications for the law. Judge Pitman was particularly emphatic that the law was not merely “government speech” in defense of Israel, but rather a classic embodiment of what the First Amendment, at its core, was designed to prevent: punishment imposed on those who disagree with the majority’s political opinions on hotly contested political topics. The attack on free speech, explained the court, was manifest from the text of the law itself:
It is a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech. It is a content-based restriction because it singles out speech about Israel, not any other country. And it is a viewpoint-based restriction because it targets only speech “intended to penalize, inflict harm on, or limit commercial relations specifically with Israel, or with a person or entity doing business in Israel or in an Israeli-controlled territory.” Tex. Gov. Case 1:18-cv-01091- . . . [T]he Court finds that H.B. 89’s plain text, the statements surrounding its passage, and Texas’s briefing in this case reveal the statute to be a viewpoint-based restriction intended not to combat discrimination on the basis of national origin, but to silence speech with which Texas disagrees. First, the plain text: H.B. 89 singles out content and viewpoint for restriction. With respect to content, the statute targets only boycotts of Israel; Texas contractors remain free to boycott Palestine or any other country.
Much of the court’s reasoning relied upon the landmark 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in NAACP v. Clairborne Hardwarde Co., which rejected attempts by the state of Mississippi to hold state NAACP leaders liable for property damage done to stores by the NAACP activists’ boycotts. Their property destruction, claimed Mississippi, was “incited” and “inspired” by the inflammatory rhetoric of NAACP leaders. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected those attempts on the ground that, as the Texas court put it, “the desire to not purchase certain products is distinctly protected in the context of a political boycott,” and nobody can be punished for the “consequences” of protected First Amendment activities, including theories that their speech “inspired” or “incited’ others to take action.
Just as those NAACP leaders in Mississippi could not be punished by the state for the consequences of their political speech advocating boycotts (because boycotts are core protected First Amendment activity), advocates of an Israel boycott may not be constitutionally limited, constrained, or punished in any way by the state as a result of their boycott activities. In sum, said the court, “plaintiffs’ BDS boycotts are speech protected by the First Amendment.”
What makes this ruling particularly important, aside from the fact that it comes from one of the largest states in the country, is that it completely rejected the most common (and most toxic) justification for these laws: that it is not designed to suppress speech or activism against Israel but rather to combat discrimination (namely, anti-Semitism or discrimination against Israelis).
The court treated this cynical argument with barely disguised disdain: “The statute’s plain text makes its purpose obvious: to prevent expressive conduct critical of the nation of Israel, not discriminatory conduct on the basis of Israeli national origin. Texas points to no authority indicating that such a purpose is a legitimate or compelling aim of government justifying the restriction of First Amendment freedoms.”
Such laws are indisputably designed to outlaw and punish political activism that lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. As the court adeptly described the targeted political activism: “The BDS movement—referring to boycotts, divestment, and sanctions—arose in response to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and its treatment of Palestinian citizens and refugees.” It is “[m]odeled after the South African anti-apartheid movement” and “seeks to pressure the Israeli government to end its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights, end discrimination against Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel, permit Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and otherwise comply with international law.”
As The Intercept has often documented, the attempt to criminalize or otherwise outlaw activism against the Israeli government is easily one of the greatest threats to free speech both in the U.S. and the West generally, if not the single greatest threat. The anti-BDS laws in particular have been rapidly proliferating in the U.S., directly threatening core free speech rights of American citizens in the name of protecting a foreign country.
As this map, previously published by The Intercept and prepared by Palestine Legal, illustrates, and as the court correctly observed, “twenty-five states have enacted legislation or issued executive orders restricting boycotts of Israel,” and “in every state to consider such legislation, the proposed measures have passed by considerable margins.”
Cool
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Octavian
What a victim, he shot a kid.
jedis kill little kids all the time in Syria and Palestine, and no one ever cares.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Sudo
Black Hole
[my hereto riemannian peach]
Sounds like whores remorse
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-04-27 at 11:26 PM UTC
in
Niggas In Space: The Game
Originally posted by ohfralala
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-04-27 at 7 AM UTC
in
Niggas In Space: The Game
Oh and here's what you DH troglodytes look like:
UwU
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2019-04-27 at 6:59 AM UTC
in
Niggas In Space: The Game
So I'm starting a new game of Stellaris and I needed a muse. Turns out it's all of you fuckers.
I'll maybe post some updates about the exploits of our Space Nigga empire in this thread. As it stands, our homeworld - Niggan Prime - orbits a trinary cluster of stars at the center of the Totse system. The glorious Space Nigga Authority is being ruled over by a noble dictatorial technocrat by the name of "Lanny Reptar", the Grand Niggus (long may he reign).
And, thus, the autistic adventures begin:
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
-SpectraL
coward
[the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
It's free speech. Don't let these tyrants fool you. You can't be convicted of a crime you haven't yet committed. Just because we don't like someone's opinion doesn't mean we have the right to shut them down. That's what groups like the Gestapo do.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
I had to get a whole bunch of booster shots to up my autism level before I could go through with all that research
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
https://www.sott.net/article/411378-Chief-engineer-of-Notre-Dame-That-fires-flames-needed-an-accelerant-to-reach-and-burn-the-churchs-ancient-oak-beams
Chief engineer of Notre Dame: That fire's flames needed an accelerant to reach and burn the church's ancient oak beams
Agora Vox
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 11:55 UTC
Translated by Sott.net
mouton archtiect engineer notre dame
Former chief architect/engineer of Notre Dame Cathedral, who oversaw renovation of its electrical wiring and installed a modern fire detection sytem in 2010
The head engineer responsible for the Notre Dame site had this to say on French TV two days ago about the 'accident' on Monday:
"With really old oak like that, you'd need a lot of smaller wood to first get the fire hot enough for the ancient oak beams to burn.
In 2010 we replaced all the electrical wiring, so there's no way this was sparked by a short-circuit. We put new wiring in place according to modern standards. And we went even further; we installed state-of-the-art fire protection and detection systems in the cathedral.
At all times, there are always two men on standby in the Cathedral, day and night, to go investigate anything the moment an alarm goes off, then if necessary to call the fire emergency services.
I am really stunned that this [the fire] has happened."
Sometimes, sadly, in European regions with large Muslim populations, there seems to be a concomitant rise in attacks on churches and Christian symbols. Before Christmas 2016, in the North Rhine-Westphalia region of Germany, where more than a million Muslims reside, some 50 public Christian statues (including those of Jesus) were beheaded and crucifixes broken.
In 2016, following the arrival in Germany of another million mostly Muslim migrants, a local newspaper reported that in the town of Dülmen, "'not a day goes by' without attacks on religious statues in the town of less than 50,000 people, and the immediate surrounding area."
In France it also seems that where the number of Muslim migrants increases, so do attacks on churches. A January 2017 study revealed that, "Islamist extremist attacks on Christians" in France rose by 38 percent, going from 273 attacks in 2015 to 376 in 2016; the majority occurred during Christmas season and "many of the attacks took place in churches and other places of worship."
As a typical example, in 2014, a Muslim man committed "major acts of vandalism" inside a historic Catholic church in Thonon-les-Bains. According to a report (with pictures) he "overturned and broke two altars, the candelabras and lecterns, destroyed statues, tore down a tabernacle, twisted a massive bronze cross, smashed in a sacristy door and even broke some stained-glass windows." He also "trampled on" the Eucharist.
For similar examples in other European countries, please see here, here, here, here, and here.
In virtually every instance of church attacks, authorities and media obfuscate the identity of the vandals. In those rare instances when the Muslim (or "migrant") identity of the destroyers is leaked, the perpetrators are then presented as suffering from mental health issues. As the recent PI-News report says:
"Hardly anyone writes and speaks about the increasing attacks on Christian symbols. There is an eloquent silence in both France and Germany about the scandal of the desecrations and the origin of the perpetrators…. Not a word, not even the slightest hint that could in anyway lead to the suspicion of migrants… It is not the perpetrators who are in danger of being ostracized, but those who dare to associate the desecration of Christian symbols with immigrant imports. They are accused of hatred, hate speech and racism."
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Regardless of who actually started the fire, the only people who win here are muslims and the globalists who let them into France to begin with. Europe and its history is being actively destroyed, piece by piece, and replaced, and nobody is doing anything about it.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Sophie
dfc 4 lyfe.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Ye that's either some gay shit or some pedo shit ngl.
JK
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Really makes ya think, huh?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
