8rites

Proud of this entire school. Wearing all my gear.

@anonimo_jones Hysterical.

Cuando mueves una imagen en Microsoft Word.

Fact. It’s one of the circles of hell. 😂

@swd2 Stand up for what against what? We don’t want illegal aliens in our country. It’s simple. We voted for this.

Today the gestapo is in the airports. Next it’ll be polling places. Stand up. Don’t normalize this.

@SenFettermanPA And you are willing to keep funding DHS. Thank you, Senator Common Sense.

As a father, I grieve for Sheridan’s parents for this unspeakable tragedy. This was a failure of not holding criminal migrants accountable and not protecting the public—and another tragic reason why I was the Dem lead on the Laken Riley law.

@Michellek4040 Just one? Maybe a vote in the morning? Celebrate democracy.

If I did a Tuesday bikini would that be okay? I don’t usually do this but I’m on spring break

@sportsrepinNYC @Michellek4040 This you? ⬇️ It seems your taste in a$$ is not hers for other reasons.

@Michellek4040 Please stop, you have a fat ass and it's not very attractive.

@KB_Brenner83 @GovPressOffice Hilarious.

Pro-tip: Daycares aren’t content farms. If you show up demanding access to film children, don’t be surprised when the cops show up.

@TRHLofficial What… no pic of the pigeon?

Had me on the edge of my seat.

@Red___Poppy @RealScottRitter @BrianCox_RLTW It’s all theater for the terrorists and dumb ass liberal Americans fall for the propaganda.

@RealScottRitter @BrianCox_RLTW A better question is why kids were at the school when it had closed three hours before it was hit?

Hi there, Rep. Khanna. Retired Army JAG here & current prof of int'l law. And you are way out of your depth. You should consider sticking to legislating & leaving #LOAC commentary to actual specialists. Like me. Allow me to explain. First off, if a power plant is "dual use," then attacking it is, by definition, NOT an "indiscriminate bombing." Here's why. As DoD Law of War Manual notes, this term is often "used to describe objects that are used by both the armed forces and the civilian population, such as power stations" (pic 1). The Manual also correctly points out this term has no legal significance. Either something qualifies as a military objective such that directing an attack against it is permitted, or it's a civilian object such that it may not be made the object of attack. See the problem yet? That's right! If something is "dual-use," it qualifies as a military objective...and directing an attack against a military objective is, by definition, NOT "indiscriminate" (pic 2). Back to pic 1, the Manual also notes that when attacking "dual-use" objects, "it will be appropriate to consider in applying the principle of proportionality the harm to the civilian population expected to result from the attack on such a military objective." You might notice I emphasized "proportionality" & "expected" there, and I did so because it's a preview to your next massive error. Here's what you claim about proportionality in your 🧵: "Proportionality forbids attacks where expected incidental civilian harm including effects like loss of hospital power, water pumps failing, food spoilage or extreme heat or cold exposure. This is excessive compared to the concrete military gain per Article 51(5)(b)." We'll get to your selection of source (AP I) later. For now, let's focus on how badly you botched the proportionality rule. To describe what the actual rule is supposed to look like, let's go back to the Manual. As it observes, personnel engaged in hostilities "must refrain from attacks in which the expected loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects incidental to the attack would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained" (pic 3). Now, I added bold text to the "expected" at the beginning & end because this highlights your next mistake. Yes you correctly note expected incidental harm is part of the equation, but you left out "expected" on the military advantage component. This is a massive error because you need to be able to tell what the expected incidental harm is & the expected (or anticipated) concrete & direct military advantage is for each attack in order to assess whether the former was "excessive in relation to" the latter. And, do you have any intel indicating what degree of incidental harm AND concrete & direct military advantage is for each attack you purport to be addressing? No, of course you don't. As such, you're not conducting a legitimate proportionality assessment. Which, is easy if you don't properly articulate law. Hell, you can make pretty much anything seem illegal if you can come up with any bullshit articulation of the legal standard you feel like fabricating. But we're not allowed to do that in actual practice. And so, you shouldn't either in public discourse, or else you're creating a false impression that potentially lawful conduct is illegal. And another thing - I noticed you left off the direct part of "concrete & direct military advantage" in your bullshit version of proportionality. That matters because remote harms need not be factored (pic 4). Some prospective harms you mentioned probably are direct enough, but others...not so much. Finally, I also noticed you claim AP I binds 🇺🇸 "as customary international law." But not all of AP I is customary, which is why I draw from the Manual instead. I'll finish off with a simple pro tip: stay in your lane. Leave LOAC analysis to @DeptofWar. And actual experts...like me.

@Michellek4040 The gap doesn’t get the level of publicity it deserves. Just sayin’.

Bikini Sunday?

Just when I think the Dems can’t be more hypocritical.

@SenatorDurbin Which is exactly what Americans voted for, dumb ass.

Senate Democrats have come to the Senate floor to fund FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard nine separate times. Republicans blocked each attempt because they wanted more money for mass deportations.

@GregSiskGoDins @NonyaBidne18233 @MargoinWNC Nonya, what is your basis for that allegation?

@NonyaBidne18233 @MargoinWNC You don’t get it, do you?

You should actually go to High Point University and spend a day. You'd understand why they can afford to do this.

@SanchoPanzy @MargoinWNC They funded their new buildings for the past decade without debt. Better investment than overpaid tenured indoctrinating professors living off the endowment earnings.

@MargoinWNC Just looked it up. HPU’s endowment is $195 million. That’s peanuts in the academic world.

@realDonJunk @TwistedFocus99 @MargoinWNC Is that why applications from the northeast exploded in the last decade? Look up the facts. If Penn State taught you how.

@TwistedFocus99 @MargoinWNC They're the bottom quintile of northeastern prep schools.

@MargoinWNC Because they’re brilliant money managers that treat students as customers. Because they are. That’s what you meant, right?

@Brownie545 @MargoinWNC Liar. Not a single trailer park in sight.

@MargoinWNC Been there. It's like one street that's filthy rich surrounded by miles of trailer parks.

@LootCrate_ @MargoinWNC GTHOH. WTH do you know about it? Just a shit stirrer stirring up shit.

@MargoinWNC HPU is a country club that gives you a degree after 4 years of paying membership dues

@TwistedFocus99 @MargoinWNC Negative. And what is + plus +? Like + + +? Plus plus plus? I’ve written checks to this school. You’re wrong.

@MargoinWNC For what it's worth, High Point University is the epitomy of why Education is so expensive. Every small school in America figured out they could charge max financial aid + plus + pell would cover & enrich themselves on the backs of tax payers with loan money never to be repaid

@JohnParadi18675 @ThoughtCrimes80 Shit stirrer stirring shit.

@8rites @ThoughtCrimes80 They'll all crap now.

New builds in Colorado are an absolute joke. 🤡