Ivich said: clandestine said: Both the people that punched Spencer, in the video and the twitter picture above, were white themselves. Doesn't change the fact that they attacked him because he showing pride in being white. Some morons are still brainwashed by white guilt, but normal working class white people are starting to get tired of the bullshit White pride is retarded, same as black pride is retarded. You don't get to choose what race you are born as, you didn't work to become the race you are. It's just a circumstance of birth, and not something anyone should feel pride or shame about. |
 |
Ivich said: clandestine said: Both the people that punched Spencer, in the video and the twitter picture above, were white themselves. Doesn't change the fact that they attacked him because he showing pride in being white. Some morons are still brainwashed by white guilt, but normal working class white people are starting to get tired of the bullshit Disliking white pride =/= experiencing white guilt |
| Was he crying in the end or what? |
 |
DeplorableNico said: The more people attack Richard Spencer, the more pity he deserves. You reap what you sew. You all realize this guy you're defending is a literal nazi, right? Who literally advocates genocide, right?? |
Yato1111 said: Was he crying in the end or what? Yeah he cried a bit. Blahkabelison said: DeplorableNico said: The more people attack Richard Spencer, the more pity he deserves. You reap what you sew. You all realize this guy you're defending is a literal nazi, right? Who literally advocates genocide, right?? He doesnt openly support killing people though I suspect he might in private. He just wants to end immigration, separate from minorities and stop interracial relationships. |
Blahkabelison said: You don't punch someone in the face for what their ideology. If he was a threat to you, then clearly, it's no longer assault, but words are not dangerous and telling a court that it was self-defense will get you in jail instead.DeplorableNico said: The more people attack Richard Spencer, the more pity he deserves. You reap what you sew. You all realize this guy you're defending is a literal nazi, right? Who literally advocates genocide, right?? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
traed said: Blahkabelison said: You all realize this guy you're defending is a literal nazi, right? Who literally advocates genocide, right?? He doesnt openly support killing people though I suspect he might in private. He just wants to end immigration, separate from minorities and stop interracial relationships. Always the psychoanalysis from the left. Meanwhile you think it's cute to have your Hammer and Sickle there. Going by death count, anyone with any level of communist sympathy is more suspect of wanting mass murder than someone with fascist leanings. |
Altairius said: traed said: He doesnt openly support killing people though I suspect he might in private. He just wants to end immigration, separate from minorities and stop interracial relationships. Always the psychoanalysis from the left. Meanwhile you think it's cute to have your Hammer and Sickle there. Going by death count, anyone with any level of communist sympathy is more suspect of wanting mass murder than someone with fascist leanings. It's not hard to see through people since I don't have autism unlike some .... I didn't say it was for sure though. It's just if you look at his interests and facial expressions and arrogance it just gets questionable. It's still possible he's not for it. You say that because you're not counting Jews as people and are comparing decades long leaders with fascists that were relatively short lived power. I am not going over that. I covered it in several threads before how a lot of those deaths are from famine that would happened under a capitalist system or other gov just as easily. (thought to me it was capitalism). I dont support Leninism or Maoism or any other authoritarian form of Socialism or any authoritarian government in general. Immahnoob said: Blahkabelison said: You don't punch someone in the face for what their ideology. If he was a threat to you, then clearly, it's no longer assault, but words are not dangerous and telling a court that it was self-defense will get you in jail instead.You all realize this guy you're defending is a literal nazi, right? Who literally advocates genocide, right?? If you really thought words arent dangerous you wouldnt give a shit what people say about punching him. Words can lead to actions of others if conveyed in just the right way. Words have power to them but that also doesnt mean a fists to the face doesnt have a certain power to it. Not saying he said anything worthy of being punched right thn though, i said that first comment about this but maybe that was other thread about it. |
traedJan 28, 2017 5:12 AM
| @traed If you really thought words arent dangerous you wouldnt give a shit what people say about punching him You seem to have an obsession with acting as if you're obtuse. Do you like being smacked around that much?Speech is not dangerous in any way, actions are. You're just wrong on being accepting of this situation when the culprits are censoring speech through violence. Not saying he said anything worthy of being punched right thn though, i said that first comment about this but maybe that was other thread about it. There's nothing he could have said that would have made him "worthy of being punched for". Sorry, traed. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
  Cry me a fucking river guys. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| @AnnoKano Two wrongs don't make a right, Anno. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
traed said: Altairius said: Always the psychoanalysis from the left. Meanwhile you think it's cute to have your Hammer and Sickle there. Going by death count, anyone with any level of communist sympathy is more suspect of wanting mass murder than someone with fascist leanings. It's not hard to see through people since I don't have autism unlike some .... I didn't say it was for sure though. It's just if you look at his interests and facial expressions and arrogance it just gets questionable. It's still possible he's not for it. You say that because you're not counting Jews as people and are comparing decades long leaders with fascists that were relatively short lived power. I am not going over that. I covered it in several threads before how a lot of those deaths are from famine that would happened under a capitalist system or other gov just as easily. (thought to me it was capitalism). I dont support Leninism or Maoism or any other authoritarian form of Socialism or any authoritarian government in general. Always the Freudian projection from the left. It's okay if you're autistic. Maybe you're Jewish too? This level of defensiveness and paranoia is unusual. You also never responded to the contradictions about Israel that I pointed out. Either way, even the mainstream narrative admits that communism had multiple times the death count. "It would have happened under capitalism". <-- Nice assumption. There seem to be a lot of assumptions about this time period, with no evidence to support them. |
AltairiusJan 28, 2017 2:46 PM
Immahnoob said: You seem to have an obsession with acting as if you're obtuse. You seem to act like you care about free speech but only show up in conversation when it's Richard Spencer or Donald Trump. I've never seen you defend anyone else so hard. You mostly only seem to care about whoever you think offends people the most. You had not a single objection in the past to Trump saying things like: " Maybe he should have been roughed up" "If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato.. knock the crap out of them, seriously. I will pay for the legal fees" "I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya" "In the good old days this doesn't happen, because they ued to treat them very very rough. " "I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher folks" " Not one objection or criticism from you about him saying this. You stuck to defending him all you could. But here you are chastising anyone who isn't Trump that even so much as finds it funny Richard Spencer got punched or doesn't mind it. Do you like being smacked around that much? Show me where I said when and if you should hit someone for what they say? You're going to have a hard time because I didn't. Speech is not dangerous in any way, actions are. You're just wrong on being accepting of this situation when the culprits are censoring speech through violence. You can't deny the truth that peoples words influence the world. Thoughts always precede actions and thoughts are influenced by words and other peoples actions thus words influence actions. Basic psychology. Some being more deserving than others of being punched doesn't mean a person should do it. It just means it's understandable why someone would and can be enjoyable. I don't think people should enjoy it if it's serious amounts of violence like a beat down. There's nothing he could have said that would have made him "worthy of being punched for". Sorry, traed. Earlier you said they can act in self defence. Which is it? A persons words can tell you their future actions as much as their actions can. They can make direct threats telling you of their action like some retarded anime or game character calling out their attacks. If some angry drunk says "im punching you right now!" do you stand there like an idiot and not act because they havent hit you yet? Clearly actions are all that matters so you should just stand there and wait till you can do anything after they do something.. They obviously just want an open discussion. |
traedJan 28, 2017 2:48 PM
| @traed You seem to act like you care about free speech but only show up in conversation when it's Richard Spencer or Donald Trump. I've never seen you defend anyone else so hard. Mostly because I didn't need to. Before Trump, or rather, before all this shit with leftists, we never made this right-left divide as much as we do now.So most of the times, everyone would go along with the truth, AKA that punching anyone in the face for what they're saying is dumb. Those that disagreed were those that were singled out. You only seem to care about whoever you think offends people the most. They're funny, yeah, but that's not really the truth. If I do pick someone as my "favorite", it usually has a deeper meaning. You had not a single objection in the past to Trump saying things like: Because I don't have objections on what people say. You can say whatever you want.You can be wrong as much as you want, all you need to do is accept it. Show me where I said when and if you should hit someone for what they say? You're going to have a hard time because I didn't. Is that what you took out of that? You seem to have become actually obtuse, it's not that you're acting it out anymore.You can't deny the truth that peoples words influence the world. I can actually, those that commit actions influenced by the words of others are the minority.Some being more deserving than others of being punched doesn't mean a person should do it. If I'd agree with you, then I can easily claim that you're enabling this behavior by finding it both funny and not sympathizing with the victim.Earlier you said they can act in self defence. Obtuse strike number 2. I was being facetious because it's obvious that no matter what someone tells you, it cannot constitute self-defense until they commit an action that would determine the threat to be true.It's the same shit with your dumb example. You don't pre-dodge, you check out how your opponent moves. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Altairius said: traed said: It's not hard to see through people since I don't have autism unlike some .... I didn't say it was for sure though. It's just if you look at his interests and facial expressions and arrogance it just gets questionable. It's still possible he's not for it. You say that because you're not counting Jews as people and are comparing decades long leaders with fascists that were relatively short lived power. I am not going over that. I covered it in several threads before how a lot of those deaths are from famine that would happened under a capitalist system or other gov just as easily. (thought to me it was capitalism). I dont support Leninism or Maoism or any other authoritarian form of Socialism or any authoritarian government in general. Always the Freudian projection from the left. It's okay if you're autistic. Maybe you're Jewish too? This level of defensiveness and paranoia is unusual. You also never responded to the contradictions about Israel that I pointed out. Either way, even the mainstream narrative admits that communism had multiple times the death count. "It would have happened under capitalism". <-- Nice assumption. There seem to be a lot of assumptions about this time period, with no evidence to support them. That's not projection. Projection is feelings and desires projected onto others. In case you dont know what autism actually is, which you probably dont, it makes it so a person has an inability at reading faces, reading body language, and reading between the lines. You only are taking his words at face value. "everyone who doesn't agree with my authoritarian white nationalism is a Jew" hahahaha for fuck sake. The mainstream media is run by rich people. Rich people dont want communism they want capitalism so they can swim in their excess and decadence. It's not my fault if you can't tell the difference between different amounts of years. "famine doesnt exist in capitalist countries" hahahaha It's not an assumption. It was caused by an attempt at a rapid industrialization and from natural weather conditions. Similar happened with the Irish potato famine and the American Great Depression. |
traed said: Altairius said: Always the Freudian projection from the left. It's okay if you're autistic. Maybe you're Jewish too? This level of defensiveness and paranoia is unusual. You also never responded to the contradictions about Israel that I pointed out. Either way, even the mainstream narrative admits that communism had multiple times the death count. "It would have happened under capitalism". <-- Nice assumption. There seem to be a lot of assumptions about this time period, with no evidence to support them. That's not projection. Projection is feelings and desires projected onto others. In case you dont know what autism actually is, which you probably dont, it makes it so a person has an inability at reading faces, reading body language, and reading between the lines. You only are taking his words at face value. "everyone who doesn't agree with my authoritarian white nationalism is a Jew" hahahaha for fuck sake. The mainstream media is run by rich people. Rich people dont want communism they want capitalism so they can swim in their excess and decadence. It's not my fault if you can't tell the difference between different amounts of years. "famine doesnt exist in capitalist countries" hahahaha It's not an assumption. It was caused by an attempt at a rapid industrialization and from natural weather conditions. Similar happened with the Irish potato famine and the American Great Depression. Always the putting of words into people's mouths from the left. I'm simply not taking your words at face value, as you did with Spencer, except I'm actually giving a reason for that (your defensiveness and general avoidance of any question about Jewish influence). You on the other hand vaguely referenced Spencer's facial expressions as evidence that he wants to kill all non-whites. Saying it would have happened at that time in that region regardless of the regime in power is an assumption with zero evidence to support it. The famine was deliberate. |
| Fun Fact #1011 He was hit upside the head with a wrench. |
 |
Immahnoob said: @traed You seem to act like you care about free speech but only show up in conversation when it's Richard Spencer or Donald Trump. I've never seen you defend anyone else so hard. Mostly because I didn't need to. Before Trump, or rather, before all this shit with leftists, we never made this right-left divide as much as we do now.So most of the times, everyone would go along with the truth, AKA that punching anyone in the face for what they're saying is dumb. Those that disagreed were those that were singled out. You only seem to care about whoever you think offends people the most. They're funny, yeah, but that's not really the truth. If I do pick someone as my "favorite", it usually has a deeper meaning. You had not a single objection in the past to Trump saying things like: Because I don't have objections on what people say. You can say whatever you want.You can be wrong as much as you want, all you need to do is accept it. Show me where I said when and if you should hit someone for what they say? You're going to have a hard time because I didn't. Is that what you took out of that? You seem to have become actually obtuse, it's not that you're acting it out anymore.You can't deny the truth that peoples words influence the world. I can actually, those that commit actions influenced by the words of others are the minority.Some being more deserving than others of being punched doesn't mean a person should do it. If I'd agree with you, then I can easily claim that you're enabling this behavior by finding it both funny and not sympathizing with the victim.Earlier you said they can act in self defence. Obtuse strike number 2. I was being facetious because it's obvious that no matter what someone tells you, it cannot constitute self-defense until they commit an action that would determine the threat to be true.It's the same shit with your dumb example. You don't pre-dodge, you check out how your opponent moves. It's not that divided really. A bit more yes but still mostly the same stuff. You claim you dont object to what other people say, while you're in this thread objecting to what other people say.... uhh okayyy.. You really like that word now. It's not my fault you're a poor communicator. I figured you were trying to make a point that if I support someone should be hit for their stances that I in turn would have to accept being hit for mine thus I must like being smacked around. Which is based on things I didn't say. Unless you meant it figuratively . Prove it's a minority. Then going by that having a sense of humour should bee outlawed because it's inciting violence. I don't think they should have punched him. I already said this. As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html Altairius said: traed said: That's not projection. Projection is feelings and desires projected onto others. In case you dont know what autism actually is, which you probably dont, it makes it so a person has an inability at reading faces, reading body language, and reading between the lines. You only are taking his words at face value. "everyone who doesn't agree with my authoritarian white nationalism is a Jew" hahahaha for fuck sake. The mainstream media is run by rich people. Rich people dont want communism they want capitalism so they can swim in their excess and decadence. It's not my fault if you can't tell the difference between different amounts of years. "famine doesnt exist in capitalist countries" hahahaha It's not an assumption. It was caused by an attempt at a rapid industrialization and from natural weather conditions. Similar happened with the Irish potato famine and the American Great Depression. Always the putting of words into people's mouths from the left. I'm simply not taking your words at face value, as you did with Spencer, except I'm actually giving a reason for that (your defensiveness and general avoidance of any question about Jewish influence). You on the other hand vaguely referenced Spencer's facial expressions as evidence that he wants to kill all non-whites. Saying it would have happened at that time in that region regardless of the regime in power is an assumption with zero evidence to support it. The famine was deliberate. Are you having a seizure or something? You just keep saying " blah bla blah from the left" over and over... I did give reasons, his overall attitude and his obsession with nazi germany and anti-ssemitism. I didn't avoid anything; you didn't ask a question you just made a statement. They didnt even talk about Israel to begin with unless i forgot about it now. I didn't say it was unavoidable just that it has noting to do with ideology and everything to do with poor management and bad luck. |
That wrench (or is it his scarf?) appears to be in his left sleeve, but the punch was right handed. Also I'm pretty sure if he got smashed over the head with a wrench he wouldn't still be conscious. |
|
Bobby2Hands said: You can see the right tip of the wrench against his black face cloth. Nothing preventing it from changing sleeves. The way the guy swung wasn't normal for a punch nor an elbow, least in my opinion. In the video it catches him in the neck/jaw and he leans away from it.That wrench (or is it his scarf?) appears to be in his left sleeve, but the punch was right handed. Also I'm pretty sure if he got smashed over the head with a wrench he wouldn't still be conscious. |
|
Astros said: Bobby2Hands said: You can see the right tip the wrench against his black face cloth. Nothing preventing it from changing sleeves. The way the guy swung wasn't normal for a punch nor an elbow, least in my opinion. In the video it catches him in the neck/jaw and he leans away from it.That wrench (or is it his scarf?) appears to be in his left sleeve, but the punch was right handed. Also I'm pretty sure if he got smashed over the head with a wrench he wouldn't still be conscious. The right tip is what makes me think it looks like a scarf. It looks kinda like it's curving around his neck and getting darker as it is shaded by his hood. But even if it is a wrench, I really doubt Spencer got hit with it, there's no way he would still be stood up. |
|
Bobby2Hands said: That's the left tip. Follow the curve of the palm up the hand and in contrast against the black is a small corner of brown. Maybe, wouldn't know unless I was him and got hit in the head.The right tip is what makes me think it looks like a scarf. It looks kinda like it's curving around his neck and getting darker as it is shaded by his hood. But even if it is a wrench, I really doubt Spencer got hit with it, there's no way he would still be stood up. |
|
| i have watched too much anime and the punch disappointing . lol |
 |
Astros said: Bobby2Hands said: That's the left tip. Follow the curve of the palm up the hand and in contrast against the black is a small corner of brown. Maybe, wouldn't know unless I was him and got hit in the head.The right tip is what makes me think it looks like a scarf. It looks kinda like it's curving around his neck and getting darker as it is shaded by his hood. But even if it is a wrench, I really doubt Spencer got hit with it, there's no way he would still be stood up. By right tip I meant camera left :p But the fact remains that whatever it is appears to be in the left sleeve. Sure it could have switched sleeves, but until you can prove that we have to assume it is still in the left sleeve because that's the only evidence we have. And once again, people don't generally stay conscious after getting smashed in the head with a wrench. |
|
| Yeah, I'll say it again... I have a hard time feeling sorry for a nazi. Shocking but true. |
clandestine said: Altairius said: Always the putting of words into people's mouths from the left. I'm simply not taking your words at face value, as you did with Spencer, except I'm actually giving a reason for that (your defensiveness and general avoidance of any question about Jewish influence). You on the other hand vaguely referenced Spencer's facial expressions as evidence that he wants to kill all non-whites. Saying it would have happened at that time in that region regardless of the regime in power is an assumption with zero evidence to support it. The famine was deliberate. Last I checked he's not a very strict leftist. Understandably you'd make the assumption that he must be a regressive leftist. You will stereotype anyone as a "regressive" or "liberal" who contradicts your frankly narrow views. There are centrists on MAL who think you talk like a blithering idiot, me in particular. Moreover, paranoia & fear are far often associated with the farther right than with the left. Psychological studies conducted using fMRI technologies have actually proven that extremists, especially farther right, conservative extremists, often have the region of the brain stimulated aasocated with paranoia and fear. So to say that extremism is solely restricted to the left, and that modern leftists solely engage in violent behavior, is a lie. Historically, evidence opposes you. You would never vehemently come to the defense of anyone under the guise of "free speech" unless they agreed with you. Perhaps the assumption that you're a white nationalist is "baseless" under your guise of "you can show me the receipts, but I won't fess up to anything I have said out of sheer delusion", but you seem to be almost proud of yourself in all this euphemism for regression. It's almost amusingly sad, you've coaxed yourself into thinking that completely devaluing anyone who does not befit your narrowmindedness is acceptable, not just politically, but in character as well. Now whether that's symptomatic of some kind of mental condition or willful ignorance is beyond my qualification to deduce (plus I don't like playing armchair psychologist), but your lack of insight into the holes of your own arguments and belligerency in not even attempting to consider the other guys argument before denouncing it? Buddy, it's time to stop. Also, stop dragging Jews into threads that ain't about jews. There's no cohesion, continuity, or reason, and there's a point where it starts to resemble painfully overt antisemitism. You know, I'm willing to say that under "freedom of speech" the arrogant fuckweed didn't deserve to get punched in the face, and that yes, anarcho-communist "anti facists" are too extreme themselves, but that is the only extent I will agree with you to. The rest of your "arguments" and rebuttals are swiss cheese, riddled with holes. If that is the study I'm thinking of, it found that the right has a strong sense of self-preservation, whereas the left almost entirely lacks that (see the situation in Europe at the moment). Naturally, when taken to an extreme, that will become paranoia. The left has always been more violent though. See Stalin, Mao, etc. The right constantly restrains itself, because they know the left has no scruples and will hold the right to a high standard while having none for itself. Saul Elinsky's "Rules for Radicals" spells this out explicitly. This was Hillary Clinton's mentor. I'm hardline pro-free speech, because my ideas are right. Marxists are becoming violent because they know they're wrong. I don't call myself white nationalist, in that I don't care about "racial purity" so much as what actually works. If you have some Japanese immigrants or something like that, it's not a big deal. You need a strong ethnic majority though. Certain religions are incompatible as well. |
Aureolus said: @AnnoKano The leftist was shot by another leftist at the Milo rally and nice use of whataboutism are you next going to shout "and you're lynching negros"? Well OK then. I will accept my responsibility, as a left winger, for the actions of a lone anarchist... provided that you will first accept your responsibility for the holocaust, Anders Breivik and the Charleston shooting. See, it's not whataboutism at all, we're both just accepting personal responsibility for the actions of our prescribed comrades. |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
| [quote=Aureolus] AnnoKano said: Aureolus said: @AnnoKano The leftist was shot by another leftist at the Milo rally and nice use of whataboutism are you next going to shout "and you're lynching negros"? Well OK then. I will accept my responsibility, as a left winger, for the actions of a lone anarchist... provided that you will first accept your responsibility for the holocaust, Anders Breivik and the Charleston shooting. See, it's not whataboutism at all, we're both just accepting personal responsibility for the actions of our prescribed comrades.[//quote] That is a whataboutism. No, the point of "whataboutism" is to divert attention from your own faults by pointing to those of others. I on the otherhand am perfectly willing to accept my responsibility for the anarchist punching Spencer... but only on the condition that you will first demonstrate that you are applying this logic consistently, without hypocrisy, regardless of the consequences. Personally I think the idea that an entire sphere of politics is accountable for the actions of everyone who is within its ranks is absurd, but if this is the path you have chosen then I am willing to indulge you. But something tells me that you won't, because you would have rather a lot more to answer for than I would. So, do you wish to reconsider your ideas about collective responsibility, continue with your futile whining, or boldly accept your responsibility for actions which you had no involvement in based on your political position? |
| Losing an Argument online? Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them! WORKS EVERY TIME! "I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact." "THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!" |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |