move to refuge camps, would you ...
a) reject their claim
b) move the current residents of Kentucky to refugee camps
c) whine about the liberal media
2007-12-18 07:33:57 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Good one.
And of course, the Yannerians have a book written by God to back their claim.
2007-12-18 07:40:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Depends. If the Yannerians are actually the true original residents of Kentucky, and if they've been wandering around America disposessed, and if they've just come out of a genocide, and they really want the land, then I'd move out the Kentuckians, and put them in another of those huge states with practically nobody in them.
Of course, that wouldn't work in the middle-east, which is what I assume you're getting at. But the point is that this isn't happening now, and the Israelis are already there, and it would be just as injust to deport them, and looking to the past won't solve anything.
So we're going to have to find a peaceful solution.
2007-12-18 15:53:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course that wasn't what happened. And of course there will never be peace because the Kentuckians are not known for peace. They'd rather fight and blow themselves up than live. Life means nothing to the them because they were told to move in there to force the Yannerians out.
Kentucky - Palestine (Israel)
Yannerians - Jews
Kentuckians - Palestinians
How did Hamas and Hezbollah and Al Queda get in Kentucky?
It wouldn't take Daniel Boone five seconds to get them out.
2007-12-18 16:00:58 · answer #3 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Would "Yannerians" translate as "Cherokee", "Chickasaw", "Mosopelea", "Shawni" or "Yuchi"?
Or are the "Yannerians" the non-indigenous Kentucky people?
Which ones are we moving out/denying their claim? Can we have a fourth option:
d) Tell them all to for f*** sake sort something out and live together like normal people.
2007-12-18 15:46:49 · answer #4 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why is living together in peace not an option? Don't people consider that the best possible option for everyone every where? Peace and tolerance are underrated.
2007-12-18 15:45:31 · answer #5 · answered by No Chance Without Yo Mama 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
E. It would not matter what the Kentucky people want. They'll do what the government tells them to do. The liberals will whine loudly and do nothing.
2007-12-18 15:44:22 · answer #6 · answered by Ruth 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
d) Teach both the Kentuckians and the Yannerians that they can live together in peace, so neither of them has to move. Their unwillingness to live together is a problem they create themselves.
2007-12-18 15:40:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the source of the claim. If it was from a Yanner religious text, it should be ignored by the US government.
2007-12-18 15:37:44 · answer #8 · answered by neil s 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
kentucky is currently an autonomous state.
you need to look into the history of 'palestine' before you make (more of) a fool of yourself.
2007-12-18 15:39:44 · answer #9 · answered by synopsis 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Live together in peace would be the best way.
2007-12-18 15:37:22 · answer #10 · answered by PROBLEM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋