I guess that questioning of the artifical legitimacy is why we are watching all the “bleeding hearts” turn into George Bush.

You fucking dipshit, the US is aiding and arming Israel and has been doing so for decades. Can you stop being such a stupid fucking naive child?

What? Are you gonna fucking guilt me? You gonna send me to hell? You gonna tell your mom? There is nothing I have to do to qualify not voting for imperial agents.

Their vassals seem to be squirming for more war

A bunch of dungeon dweebs with zero understanding of global politics. Some Christo fascist extremist group that would start and lose a civil war with anyone non white.

Lmao your like I love fascists just please keep the Jesus out and don’t lose the coups we start

I think you are just stupid.

Who the fuck cares

Libs be like: Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump I am very smart.

“Sending”

You took Trump at his word about NATO. Do you also believe he is anti-war? You gonna block me?

He is a Zionist and engages in partisan discourse within zionism. He is only critical of who is empowering the Zionist state. He still supports the project, and you agree he does. Being accepting of it absolutely makes him a Zionist. Isreal does not have the right to exist.

Bernie is a Zionist.

I guess it’s time to gawk at the Baptists for being caught up in their own discourse.

Union dues and used books.

Don’t vote

Yeah the confused Canadians need to get a clue

No

Exactly. Any threat to Israel is a threat to US legitimacy.

Spatial awareness and sensitivity, especially in doorways, hallways, and sidewalks.

It’s an easy game to play actually. Strict contructionists will only recognize discourse that can be understood in 1790, or whichever relevant time. They use dictionaries from that time and the writings of the amerikan founders to make their points. You won’t easily find anything from that era that implies “religion” is anything other than Christianity and it’s various sects. To assert otherwise would be to legislate without congress. So they can argue that excluding non-Christians and non-Protestants is in line with the intentions of the authors regardless of article 6.

Is it a perfect line of thinking without contradictions? Of course not, but neither is the counter idea that America was designed to accommodate non-Christians.