News: Registration requires "verification" before you are allowed to post.  Be sure to check your "spam" folder to make sure that you receive the verification link.  The e-mail should come from "Onnidan Fan Forum" with the return address -> staff@onnidan.com.


Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
General Discussion Forum / Re: Michael Jackson abused boys
« Last post by DOOMSDAY on Today at 02:21:34 PM »


This man was sick.

Prince was always better than him.

So about how old were you in this clip with MJ?

Would you have felt better about it if Prince had been your first?

It's shameful.  It manifests itself to this day in your numerous hyper-masculine woman-chasing postings.  It was always obvious yet we never saw it.  I'm so sorry...
82
Politics / Re: Did you know
« Last post by oldsport on Today at 02:18:44 PM »


Hypocrisy at its best

Fake photo of Melania ...  if I saw Moo-Chelle's tits... :vomit:

Melania is so beautiful for words escape me...

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=melania+trump&fr=yhs-pty-pty_email&hspart=pty&hsimp=yhs-pty_email&imgurl=https%3A
83
TRUMP IS WINNING - K----s....

Mexico Deploys Troops To The U.S. Border. Here's What That Means.

 Beth Baumann Beth Baumann | @eb454 |Posted: Jun 24, 2019 7:22 PM

Mexico Deploys Troops To The U.S. Border. Here's What That Means.

Source: AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd

Mexico deployed almost 15,000 troops to its northern border to prevent illegal aliens and caravans from crossing into the United States, reaffirming their commitment to help the U.S. with its immigration problem.

"In the northern part of the country, we have deployed a total of almost 15,000 troops composed of National Guard elements and military units," Mexico's Secretary of Defense Luis Sandoval revealed on Monday, the Agence France-Presse reported. The troops are made up of the National Guard and Army.

Mexico had previously deployed 6,000 troops to its southern border with Guatemala, where they're detaining illegal aliens who plan to make their way to the United States.

“We simply detain them and turn them over to the authorities,” Sandoval said during a press conference. "Given that (undocumented) migration is not a crime but rather an administrative violation, we simply detain them and turn them over to the authorities" at the National Migration Institute.


The decision to deploy troops to Mexico's northern border is a different approach than the country has normally taken. But it comes after President Donald Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico until the Mexico government helps prevent illegal aliens from coming to the United States' southern border.

Mexico has 45 days to prove they've ramped up border security otherwise sanctions will be imposed. This time frame was part of an agreement between Mexico and the United States, The Hill reported.

Specifically, the Trump administration said they wanted to see three things from Mexico:

1. Operational security along Mexico's southern border with Guatemala.

2. Target criminal organizations, like drug traffickers and human smugglers, who are playing a role in the flood of illegal aliens.

3. A partnership between the United States and Mexico when it comes to asylum. The goal should be to protect people in the first safe country they arrive in, not necessarily the United States.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/06/24/mexican-troops-hit-americas-southern-border-to-prevent-flow-of-illegal-aliens-n25
84
Politics / Re: Did you know
« Last post by Strike79 on Today at 02:12:17 PM »
 :no:^^^Que and board:

Wasn’t it some stupid bytch in West Va or somewhere who got run when she publicly applauded the fact that Trump’s ole lady was now First Lady because it meant after eight years we finally had “class” in that position.

Mrs. Obama is a beautiful, BRILLIANT sistah of refinement, elegance, dignity and grace. If there EVER existed in the public domain a photo of Mrs. Obama posing like Trump’s ole lady in the pic that Que posted^^^, the dignity and class of every negro woman in America would have been impugned.

Query: Do y’all think Her Majesty, the Queen of England, was aware this gal had once posed like that^^^when she received those folks at her crib a couple of weeks ago?  :shrug:
85
Politics / JASON HILL VIDEO: AN ETHICAL DEFENSE OF ZIONISM
« Last post by oldsport on Today at 02:10:38 PM »
You K----s should watch and listen to Hill. I have great respect and admiration for the Jewish people and Israel.

JASON HILL VIDEO: AN ETHICAL DEFENSE OF ZIONISM

My deepest respect for the Jewish people -- and for Jewish civilization.

June 24, 2019 

Jason D. Hill


In this new video, Professor Jason D. Hill delivers An Ethical Defense of Zionism, sharing his deepest respect for the Jewish people and Jewish civilization. Don't miss it! [And make sure to read Prof. Hill's Open Letter to Attorney General William Barr, in which Prof. Hill declares: Disband Students for Justice in Palestine and All BDS Movements.]


 
86
Politics / Re: Trump accused of Rape by magazine writer
« Last post by oldsport on Today at 02:06:52 PM »
So trump has never raped anyone or paid anyone off to hush his affairs right????  Even though he admits grabbing by the P#### on tape.

Show me the evidence proving DJT committed a rape. The grabbing a pussy is not rape by definition. Also, the commit just locker room talk. Not one woman has proven through supported evidence that Trump assaulted her in such a minor. Go sit down somewhere K----.
87
General Discussion Forum / Re: Queen Sugar....
« Last post by Ivan on Today at 02:05:49 PM »
If you think Ralph Angel told her off, Auntie Vi is gonna light her @zz up next week. 

Ready to see what havoc Jimmy Dale is gonna wreak over the next few episodes

Watched the episode last night after coming home from vacation...............................

What I don't get about Nova is this.............
She keeps saying how revealing all this information is going to "help" so many families. That may or may not be true. But how does it help HER family. Revealing that her nephew is illigetimate when he's 6 years old? Saying your sister gets ahead because she's lightskinned and mean / selfish? Saying your aunt has been weak as long as you've known her? How's that fair to the family, regardless of if it helps other families or not? The information her sister told her about the divorce and whatnot was privileged information. Why would she put that out there for all the world to see? How does she know that her brother wasn't going to tell his son about the circumstances of his birth, once he got older?

Nova's character is a CLEAR example of someone taking selfishness to the next level. At no point does she believe this will be helpful to her family because if she did, she would've asked their permission to expose them, OR she would have made the book fictional. If she were my sister, we probably wouldn't talk for many, many years if at all.  :no:
88
AMB. FRIEDMAN EXPOSES THE RADICALISM OF OBAMA’S ISRAEL POLICIES

How Obama's anti-Israel hostility has left the Middle East situation more dangerous than
ever.

June 25, 2019 

Caroline Glick


Israel’s elections do-over has pushed back President Donald Trump’s planned roll out of his “deal of the century,” which will set out his administration’s plan for achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But all the same, members of his “peace team” are making headlines.

In an interview with the New York Times published on June 8, U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman spoke in broad terms about what the Trump team envisages in regards to the ultimate disposition of the West Bank, otherwise known as Judea and Samaria.

Nearly a half million Israeli Jews live in the areas. Another 300,000 Israeli Jews live in neighborhoods in northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods. The Palestinians demand that in exchange for peace, Israel must expel all of the Israeli Jews and transfer their cities, villages, neighborhoods, and farms to the Palestinians.

Israel rejects these positions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear in his last term of office that he will not remove any Israelis from their homes and communities in Judea and Samaria, let alone in Jerusalem.

In his interview with the Times, Friedman said, “Under certain circumstances, I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”

On Sunday, his colleague Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s special assistant for negotiations, expressed his support for Friedman’s statement.

In an interview at the Jerusalem Post conference in New York, Greenblatt said, “I will let David’s comments stand for themselves. I think he said them elegantly and I support his comments.”

In a separate appearance on June 17, Greenblatt also rejected the Palestinian position that Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria represent obstacles to peace. In Greenblatt’s words, “The lack of peace has nothing to do with the existence of settlements, no matter what people say day in and day out.”

Rather, in his remarks to the Times, Friedman explained that the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to make a deal with Israel is the most significant obstacle to peace. “There’s more blame on the Palestinian side,” he said.

Friedman added, “There were some extraordinarily generous proposals made to the Palestinians that they turned down.”

Friedman’s statements to the Times sparked immediate outrage among the Palestinian leadership in Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s governing Fatah party. Hamas sent a mob to Gaza’s border with Israel to riot in protest. PA leaders attacked Friedman as “a settler spokesman.”

The PA’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it is considering filing a war crimes complaint against Friedman with the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

Members of Israel’s far left joined the Palestinians in condemning Friedman, as did far left American Jewish groups like J Street and Americans for Peace Now.

There are two notable aspects regarding both Friedman’s remarks – and subsequent remarks by Greenblatt – and the furious responses they have generated among the Palestinians and their allies on the far left in the U.S. and Israel.

Friedman’s remarks were notable because he did nothing but restate the positions of all previous U.S. administrations other than the Obama administration. It has been the position of every U.S. administration since the Johnson administration that Israel would not be expected to transfer control over all of the territories it has controlled since the 1967 Six Day War in the framework of peace treaties with its Arab neighbors. The Johnson administration made this point explicitly in the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War in two ways.

First, then-president Lyndon Johnson’s UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg insisted that the language in UN Security Council Resolution 242, which set the terms for the ceasefire at the end of the war and the terms for future peace between the Arab states and Israel, enable perpetual retention by Israel of some of the territories it took control over during the war.

As former Israeli UN ambassador Dr. Dore Gold wrote recently, the Johnson administration insisted on drafting the resolution in a manner that kept open the possibility that Israel would retain significant territories in perpetuity.

Two weeks after the war ended, on June 29, 1967, at Johnson’s request, then Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff presented Johnson with the U.S. military’s assessment of Israel’s territorial requirements. The Wheeler memo stated that in all future peace deals between Israel and the Arab states, Israel would be required to retain large swathes of territory to secure its borders.

In the intervening years, as Gold noted, it was the consistent position of the U.S. that Israel would retain significant territory in all future peace deals with its neighbors, including the Palestinians. Even Jimmy Carter, who is widely viewed as the most anti-Israel U.S. president aside from Barack Obama said in 2009, that he envisioned that in any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel would retain control over blocs of communities in Judea and Samaria.

It was due to this longstanding U.S. position that Israeli leaders were blindsided by the hostility of the Obama administration. Unlike all of its predecessors, the Obama administration adopted the Palestinian position that Israel should be expected to expel some 750,000 Israeli citizens from their homes and cities and neighborhoods in the framework of peace with the Palestinians. The administration made this view clear in its determination that those Israeli neighborhoods and communities were “illegal”.

The Obama administration demanded that Israel prevent Israeli Jews from exercising their property rights to build homes and public buildings not only in Judea and Samaria, but in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967 as well.

Netanyahu was so concerned by Obama’s radical shift in U.S. policy that in 2011 he felt compelled to respond to Obama’s unprecedentedly hostile position publicly. In May 2011, Netanyahu used a photo opportunity in the Oval Office to push back against Obama. Sitting next to a glaring Obama, Netanyahu insisted that Israel would not retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, the country’s indefensible boundaries, which invited invasion before the 1967 war. As the reactions to Friedman’s New York Times interview made clear, outside the far left, no significant Israeli constituency exists for such a position.

In other words, Friedman and later Greenblatt did nothing other than to make official the Trump administration’s rejection of Obama’s radical shift of U.S. foreign policy.

Indeed, in his interview with the Times, Friedman blasted the Obama administration’s radicalism. He said that by allowing the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2234, which calls Israeli settlements a “flagrant violation” of international law, the Obama administration gave credence to the Palestinian claim “that the entire West Bank and East Jerusalem belong to them.”

This brings us to the left’s condemnation of Friedman and Greenblatt’s statements. Whereas the Trump administration is systematically rolling back Obama’s radical Middle East policies, whether in relation to Iran or Israel and the Palestinians or the Sunni Arab world writ large, those policies did have a profound and enduring impact on the American and Israeli left.

The Obama administration’s positions has shifted the discourse on the left, in the U.S. and the far left in Israel in relation to Israel and the Palestinians to a starting point that assumes that Israel’s unification of Jerusalem in the aftermath of the 1967 war was illegal and that all Jewish presence in unified Jerusalem, as well as in Judea and Samaria, is similarly illegal.

The Democratic Party’s newfound hostility to Israel, expressed among other things in the refusal of all declared Democratic presidential candidates to attend the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC’s annual convention in Washington in March, and in repeated allegations of racism lobbed at the Israeli government by Democratic White House aspirants, is a direct consequence of Obama’s radical shift against Israel.

It is hard to overstate how radical, and out of step with the basic principles of international law, this position is. It is also hard to overstate how hostile this position is to Israel’s very existence.

The Trump administration may or may not end up unveiling its peace plan. And if that plan is unveiled, the question of whether it will have a lasting impact on the politics of peacemaking in the Middle East will be a function of whether Trump wins reelection or if he is defeated by a Democratic challenger next November.

What is clear enough is that it isn’t the Trump administration that has adopted positions radically out of line with those of previous administrations. Rather, it was the Obama administration that adopted positions hostile to Israel that represented a clear breach with the positions of all of its predecessors – Democratic and Republican.

It is similarly clear that the Obama administration’s radicalism in turn radicalized its supporters in the Democratic Party and in the far left in Israel and worldwide. And as a consequence, the distinction between the two major political parties in the U.S. today on the issue of Israel and the Middle East has never been more pronounced or dangerous for Israel.

Caroline Glick is a world-renowned journalist and commentator on the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy, and the author of The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. Read more at www.CarolineGlick.com.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/274098/amb-friedman-exposes-radicalism-obamas-israel-caroline-glick
89
Politics / Re: This right here made my laugh HARD
« Last post by Strike79 on Today at 02:00:05 PM »
Alum^^^this dude Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and the rest of those nutjobs orchestrating and implementing what purports to be Iranian foreign policy don’t have a CLUE about who they f’ing with trying to deal with Iran.

They’re trying to squeeze those people economically enough to say “Uncle,” and hope that compels them back to the negotiating table. Yeah, the sanctions are really making it tough for the Iranian people, but those people have dignity and self-respect. And, more ominously, they have “proxies” around the world who they can commission at anytime to strike at American interests.

This dude Trump is going to wound up getting ALOT of people f’ed up.  >:(
90
Politics / Re: Trump accused of Rape by magazine writer
« Last post by Ken on Today at 02:00:00 PM »
So trump has never raped anyone or paid anyone off to hush his affairs right????  Even though he admits grabbing by the P#### on tape.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10

 

Powered by EzPortal