«12. . .2,7802,7812,7822,7832,7842,7852,786. . .2,7992,800»
Happy mother's day. you guys better say it to your mom or else... (I even said it to 
Potenzia's mom)
I'm from the UK so mothers day is on the 10th of march but happy mother's day to all the moms in the US
? Mother's Day was months ago
Almitruz and Hunetia dos
what are you yapping about, it's today
ofc, the british just have to be "unique"
Dead chat
Dead Massange
True that.. shouldn’t he be so annoying
Eh I don't know with my current status if I am allowed to debate on the basis of the constitution. But.. yolo..
1. Yes, I know it's contradictory. That's literally what it says. "(point e.) The Governor has no right to undermine the rules presented in the Constitution, since the Governor is a citizen of the Liberal Democratic Union and not above the law, amidst their special rights (limited powers)." This is mainly about the fact that the Governor is also subject to other rules such as those of the RP. And that clarification is more the problem than the contradiction imo. In addition, it would be much more useful to just provide a definition of apolitical. "(point f.) The Governor is asked to remain a-political throughout their time in office." Because it also says that the Governor is a citizen, and every citizen are allowed to run for elections according to the constitution. And because the Governor is a citizen, should he also be allowed to make amendments? Or does that also fall within this process of apoliticality? It is clear to me, but there is a chance that, and I actually hope so, that there will be another Governor after me. For them, the vagueness can be a problem, or not. But we can better be sure than not.
2. Same definition of apolitical – or not. As the current successor, he has fulfilled a government role without protest.
3. Yes, the vagueness about constitutional amendments and normal laws. I understand the concern. However, this can be solved with a simple word. The word depends on which direction you want to take it. In addition, I disagree with this: "Furthermore, the text outlines minimum requirements for citizenship, but it's not clear if Congress has the authority to further restrict citizenship beyond these requirements.". Because this is literally already stated in the constitution: "Congress may place further requirements or restrictions on eligibility for Citizenship status by passing relevant laws." I don't know why ChatGPT mentioned this because it is literally in the constitution and has been there since the very beginning of this constitution.
4. Yes, because there is no specification, it is the same for every office in the administration. And there definitely is a clarification on the proces.
5. I don't have an opinion on this yet because the process has not yet been tested in use.
It was yesterday (Sunday, May 12) for New Zealand.
aketura returned yoooo
nice
(this was in kyodeia :3)
i was the 667th vote for the security council resolution "commend outer sparta" just after 666
hunetia's consonants and vowels:
ueia - vowels
hnt - consonants
so real
hey uei (o) hnt (ds), I am ee sjvr
hnt ds = hunt deez
ooo your name looks kinda spooky ooooOOOOOooo0
AH you scurred me jbrrufv
That's what I do
Okk so here I am...
This is a very pro-Israeli narrative. Jews and Palestinians lived together for a long time, not entirely completely, effortlessly.
Firstly, the results of the Balfour Declaration. Even before it, European Jews were already migrating to Palestine, but certainly not too substantially and certainly not too many riots. Here and there, but that is certainly not unusual. But.. thus the Balfour Declaration. This is a letter by British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour to a member of the Rotschild family, who had close ties with Chaïm Weizmann, the main-man in the search for a Jewish state. In that Balfour statement, Balfour gives a kind of indirect permission, or at least has been interpreted as such, for Jews to migrate to Palestine, a British Protectorate after WW1. This happens en masse. This migration got out of hand until that Peel or at least Peel Commission plan was put into plan. This divided Palestine in two. The Zionists said yes, what would you be like as a people? Finally our own country. Well, at least since they had been looking for it for so long. And then again in the holy land. In addition, the Arabs, or at least the Palestinians, said no. I understand their reasoning too. You live with Jews in the neighborhood for centuries, and in twenty years there is mass migration and they get their own country at the same time as you. Then there was a plan that was supposed to stop mass migration, to which the Zionists answered no. Which in turn is logically as well.
Seconly. Fast forward: The Nakba. And I will use Wikipedia for it, as it explains it quite good. It was the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine during the 1948 Palestine war through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. During the Nakba in 1948, approximately half of Palestine's predominantly Arab population, or around 750,000 people, were expelled from their homes or made to flee, at first by Zionist paramilitaries through various violent means, and after the establishment of the State of Israel, by the Israel Defense Forces. This occurred in the wake of dozens of massacres targeting Palestinian Arabs and the depopulation of 500 Arab-majority towns and villages, with many of these being either completely destroyed or repopulated by Jews and given new Hebrew names. By the end of the war, 78% of the total land area of the former Mandatory Palestine was controlled by Israel and at least 15,000 Palestinian Arabs had been killed.
This in turn led, albeit not directly, to the foundation of the PLO by Yassar Arafat, who is a known terrorist. I won't deny that. And with this PLO, we are still dealing today. And yes I know I have forgotten very important wars. These obviously contribute to the conflict.
Lastly, comparing the of Israeli settlers in the West Bank to Arab citizens of Israel is a false equivalence. While both groups are civilians, the settlers are living in territory that is internationally recognized as occupied Palestinian land and are often supported by the Israeli government in contravention of international law. Arab citizens of Israel, on the other hand, are living within the internationally recognized borders of the state and are entitled to full rights and protections under Israeli law, although discrimination and unequal treatment persist, and sometimes dominates. Yes, it is good to place the West Bank without supervision from Israel. They should certainly be supervised, but not by Israel. In addition, in my opinion, the Israel settlers are worse. If this were not the case you would not have called them settlers.
good
Anyone else do fantasy football?
I have done it, not anymore though
Oh cool
I got into it in February and honestly I think i've done really well
Top of both my league groups by 56 points with one gameweek left!
leitmotif hehe
«12. . .2,7802,7812,7822,7832,7842,7852,786. . .2,7992,800»
Advertisement
