I sure hope not. Don’t care about theatres but I go wants to watch a movie on a cell phone.
Not anyone that cares about the quality experience any way! Hell, I won’t even watch YouTube on my cell phone!
Nope.
Because you still have yet to show any way at all that the plans put forth and explained to you would hurt the poor.
You keep going on about how people shouldn’t be able to get wealthy. About how you think having wealth is obscene.
And when a plan is in place where there are no poor, you still want to take money away from people with more.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has many people who are working multiple full-time jobs just to make rent
That wouldn’t be the case with fully funded minimum income, would it?
Fairness isn’t just about “the same percentage”, you son of a bitch…
No? Well it is to me.
I don’t care about your hatred of money and people who have a penny more than you do.
There wouldn’t be any more poor. That’s kind of the point. But you don’t appear to care about that aspect if you can’t take away as much as you want.
Or do the poor only matter to you when you can make them give up more of the money they need to merely subsist?
Seeing how a flat tax doesn’t kick in until above the poverty line they wouldn’t be giving up anything. And coupling the two flat taxes with a social spending act would eliminate poverty completely.
But you don’t appear to care about that if you can’t take as much as you personally want to from people who have more than you do.
It wasn’t his fucking community. He didn’t fucking live there
His father did.
The only violence that resulted in harm to people that night
Yep. I aware of your opinion everyone should just lay down and ignore any threat property and possessions.
It wasn’t his property.
He was asked to be there, and he was there for that reason.
You might be able to get away with some semblance of a self-defense explanation for the first killing. But the other two men were responding to what they likely saw as an active shooter threat.
Uhhuh. Aure. Then why did nobody say as such in the trial. Not even the prosecutor came up with that for any real justification for pointing a gun at someone.
And the not to us comment: referring to Americans.
SDM is not from the US.
And people like you who have an absolute few of anything bigger than a piece of paper used for defence are a tiny tiny minority.
You do realize that with Rittenhouse toting an AR-15 around anyone could similarly have gunned him down like a dog and claimed - truthfully - that they feared for their life?
I understand it’s not something you’re used to.
A slung rifle is generally not threatening. Not to us. Nor is one herald at the ‘low and ready’ position.
In both cases firing would be reactionary. Not primary. But the time you lift it into position an assailant already has first chance and more.
Both positions are completely defensive.
This is opposed to the standard state you see in movies or news of police here: the ‘high ready’ position with the barrel pointed forward and down. Or the ‘target ready’ with the barrel straight forward.
Also, AR15cv, this is not an automatic. There’s no spray n pray. This is a manual single fire rifle with self eject-and-load.
And your retelling of the events matches the misreporting of the news. Not the events told by witnesses on both sides during the trial.
In two cases Rittenhouse was walking, not running, when he was threatened. In the third he was trying to run AWAY from the threat.
Do I think he should have been there? Probably not the best judgement.
But he did what he thought was best for his community that evening. And this is the result of that choice.
But again, the protesters weren’t completely innocent either. Arson, vandalism, criminal destruction, theft, … there was reason for protection of property.
The three people he shot were shot because they actually threatened his life.
And no matter how we slice it, Rittenhouse did obtain himself an AR-15, did travel quite a distance to a trouble spot, and did go in looking for people to shoot who would most certainly be black.
He went from his mother‘a town to his father’s. Auto help defend a local car company. And he was generally trying to help supply medical aid. Not shoot people.
He would wind up defending himself against 3 different white men.
That’s what the situation was.
Seriously: you are totally missing the premise behind the plans!
You’ve already had the effects of a flat tax on the poor
No. All you have put forth is a bunch of theoretical ideas.
Point to any single issue that would hurt the (no longer existing) poor with the triplet plan.
Talking about how a poor person losing $100 is not the same as a rich person losing $100 is meaningless now.
Correction. How a low income person loosing 2500 is not the same as a less low income person loosing 25000.
A flat tax is a percent, not a dollar amount.
deconstructed and shoved in your face
No: I have not. Calling on mythical unicorns and gods and centors is not providing evidence.
Claims that rich people use loopholes via deductions today has zero crossover to a zero deduction system.
…when you said I don’t give a fuck about the poor.
Inaccurate. I said you’re primary concern is making sure nobody has more than you do. Don’t be a sail fish fuck. Note a selfish moron.
because while I live a relatively comfortable life, it is by no means financially secure.
Nor am I. I already stated my rough annual personal. And I would have zero security if not for my family having busted their arses over the centuries.
I’m a walking medical timebomb waiting to go off.
My mum is in a chair on o2. I’m damn close and should be if not for some genetic crap that somehow keeps me going. I’m barely mid-life. If I make 60… I may reconsider if our gods of olde have some value.
Our survival is dependant on a pension and very well selected stocks.
Musk et al. The difference is you have clear jealousy!
I recognise that existence is completely random and unguided chaos.
be. He never has to worry…
Well, neither will you or I with the flat tax triplet!
Hell, you’ve all but said that the obscenely wealthy deserve to hoard their wealth, regardless of how much that fucks with the economy and worsens poverty.
See previous statement. Guaranteed income levels eliminates poverty. It can be funded by 10% of all above it and 40% on corporate taxes.
You don’t even want to think about how you’d fuck over poor people.
I wouldn’t. Nor would the triplet plan presented 9 times in the last 12 years.
Of those many included a government savings account plan. Something we know works because 32% of SS, SSD, and FPP recipients use them today.
you Trumpist son of a bitch
Correction, anti internationalism, sanction the fuck out of Ukraine, leave the Middle East alone, secure the border, don’t touch my fucking rifle, son of a bytch. My birth mum wasn’t married. So I’m truly a bastard.
how that same number will make poverty worse.
You provided zero anything, at all, as to how a 40% corporate 10% individual tax funded guaranteed income would make poverty worse.
poverty compounds upon poverty
True. That has nothing to do with the suggested plans which eliminate poverty.
fairness for the rich
fairness for all
want it for everyone who is struggling to survive—not thrive, but merely survive
And I’d rather make sure everyone thrived!
money away from them because they don’t fucking need it like poor people do
And I want to go after the source, not the recipient.
accumulated in stocks and bank accounts
Your reaction is ignorance.
I own stocks
My family does too. I take it you don’t.
I am close friends with a ‘homeless’ vet who put nearly all of his pay into dividend paying stocks and lives off of it. Out of a Red Roof Inn +.
He has a bank account. SSD. Military payout. And his stocks.
Stocks are taxed when converted to spendable assets.
Sure there’s loss deduction. That would be eliminated under a flat tax.
Just because CNN told you they don’t pay taxes doesn’t make it true.
You don’t pay taxes till it’s traded. But they pay taxes!
As for bank accounts: interest is income. And taxed every year.
Sure rich people write off interest income against investment losses but again, that disappears under EVERY flat tax plan presented.
tax breaks
Don’t exist under a flat tax.
I give a fuck about wanting to help lift as many people out of poverty as possible
Yet fail to understand what a 40% corporate rate, 8 trillion dollars, and the social package that was attached to most flat tax plans, does to eliminate poverty. Not help! Eliminate!
All you support is protecting rich people from giving up more money
Don’t libel and slander my view. All I support is a way to 100% eliminate poverty completely.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you actually care: I’d be happy to send you links to EVERY flat tax plan presented in the federal House/Senate over the last decade. (They’re on the senate and house .gov sites.)
You said you supported Sanders, yes? He sponsored 1 and supported (signed on to) 2.
AOC has supported one.
Those plans were
10% individual 40% corporate
12%/35%
10%40%
Sadly they often get shit down or stalled by Republicans. Though Obama’s dem majority kills one and Clinton’s dem majority killed 3.
Flat taxes doesn’t hurt the poor. It creates a path to eliminate the poor.
It raises them all up!
If at this point you still can’t comprehend how it’s possible… I’m sorry. And saddened!
Because it is possible. All we need is brave people to do so.
Law doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Nor does funding.
Based on 2020 numbers the pair of flat taxes, 10% personal and the common 10,20,40 corporate (>50, 50-500, 501+) would supply a total of 11.2 trillion to to the federal government. Per year.
Says the person completely incapable of showing a single
Situation where such a plan hurts the poor.
Why don’t you just admit you don’t care if the plan helps the poor or not.
Just admit you only care about seeing to it that anyone with more than you, more of anything at all, needs to give up whatever they have that you don’t.
Just admit it’s not the poor you care about. It’s making nobody ever has something you don’t.
So where does this come into play. When everyone is guaranteed 24999.49?
20k and 25are the common starting point for flat taxing.
So would that not be a good cap rate for guaranteed income?
So now the poor make just shy of the minimum taxable rate.
No more poverty level.
You keep talking about the poor. The whole point of a fully tax funded social safety guarantee is to eliminate the pour’s poverty!
Then you no longer have the poor?
A socioeconomic theory that is mathematically inaccurate.
10% of 1000 is greater than 10% of 100. $100 has greater utility than than $10.
You simply dislike wealth and thus ignore anything that my allow it to be created.
corporations and rich people avoid paying taxes
Which can not be done under a flat tax plan. As there are no deductions.
We’ve explained to you how wealth and poverty both compound upon each other.
… under graduated plans.
You have not shown how that would even be possible under a plan that doesn’t have deductions.
a healthy social safety net
?? Isn’t that exactly was guaranteed income, free education, free universal health care… provides?
I have no pity for the rich. You won’t convince me to feel it by saying “a flat tax is fair” over and over.
Doesn’t change that it’s equality though. Again, you simply hate those that have more than you do.
That doesn’t make your lack of ability to explain:
how the poor are hurt by a fully funded social safety and security plan.
Nor how the poor are hurt by paying less taxes
Nor how the poor are hurt because someone works 45 hours instead of 30.
Or how anyone is hurt by someone else having more of something.
conservative economics bullshit
Except flat tax plans have nearly always be introduced by Democrats.
No conservative in recent history would jump at a plan that
drastically increases corporate taxes
Removes all deductions
Forces them to pay taxes as they can’t loophole out of them.
Once again, this time with feeling: Show any way, any way, that the flat tax plans hurt the poor.
Not how it doesn’t punish the wealthy who you want to all rot. Anything, any way, it hurts the poor.
I ask as a jury would be asked. Set aside all the surrounding material not directly related.
Based on the surveillance footage he may not be quite so innocent.
To begin, his group appears to be monitoring the progression of the van. As it approaches the parking lot they flee the open view, drawing weapons, to near/behind the pickup.
I can’t tell who fired first from the video but it looks to be near simultaneous.
By running the audio through Microsoft’s live speech to text program, which is not what it’s meant for, we get some partial, but potentially harmful, Dialogue.
…here they’re coming…
…it’s (get?) ready… behind the truck… no go…
Shots.
The purely evil and (should-be-) criminal actions of the police notwithstanding;
Could this be a case of vigilantism? A group of poc attempting to take out white suprematists?
Is this a situation of self caused martyrising? By intentionally taking an offensive stance?
I take no sides here on the preceding aspect of the event. That’s for the legal system to untangle. But it is something to consider in our pondering of what was obviously a sad, sad, slate of events.
Unfortunately the generic grouping is just dragnet and catches any alternative view in the process.
I don’t support PV per say. I support their right to say what they want just like MSNBC or OAN. Or the Daily Bizarre
Doesn’t matter if you like it or agree.
Be it The Word or Hustler Taboo.
The right to freedom of speech.
On the post: Ridley Scott Blames His Latest Movie Bombing At The Box Office On Facebook And Millennials, Rather Than Pandemic And Poor Marketing
Re:
I sure hope not. Don’t care about theatres but I go wants to watch a movie on a cell phone.
Not anyone that cares about the quality experience any way! Hell, I won’t even watch YouTube on my cell phone!
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re:
Nope.
Because you still have yet to show any way at all that the plans put forth and explained to you would hurt the poor.
You keep going on about how people shouldn’t be able to get wealthy. About how you think having wealth is obscene.
And when a plan is in place where there are no poor, you still want to take money away from people with more.
That wouldn’t be the case with fully funded minimum income, would it?
No? Well it is to me.
I don’t care about your hatred of money and people who have a penny more than you do.
There wouldn’t be any more poor. That’s kind of the point. But you don’t appear to care about that aspect if you can’t take away as much as you want.
Seeing how a flat tax doesn’t kick in until above the poverty line they wouldn’t be giving up anything. And coupling the two flat taxes with a social spending act would eliminate poverty completely.
But you don’t appear to care about that if you can’t take as much as you personally want to from people who have more than you do.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re:
Well, I don’t know all that many. But class anyone who disagrees with you alt right so nothing I can do about your warped perception of existence.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re:
His father did.
Yep. I aware of your opinion everyone should just lay down and ignore any threat property and possessions.
He was asked to be there, and he was there for that reason.
Uhhuh. Aure. Then why did nobody say as such in the trial. Not even the prosecutor came up with that for any real justification for pointing a gun at someone.
And the not to us comment: referring to Americans.
SDM is not from the US.
And people like you who have an absolute few of anything bigger than a piece of paper used for defence are a tiny tiny minority.
On the post: Trump Given 30 Days To Have His Social Media Site Comply With Open Source License
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong license
I generally agree with you.
Would just be nice to see some level of consolidation. But that’s highly unlikely.
Which was exactly where I started this.
My inability to combine compiled code into a single package.
PMs are great. But the process takes longer than just double clicking, hitting ok and being done.
I just wonder how many things have the Djvu ending. Where the inability to roll a complete package killed the format.
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re:
I take it you can’t explain any deficiency in the idea then.
If it doesn’t hurt the people you don’t like you simply write it off.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re: Re: On review
Aye, there is that as well.
The whole situation is fucked.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re: Re: Re:
I understand it’s not something you’re used to.
A slung rifle is generally not threatening. Not to us. Nor is one herald at the ‘low and ready’ position.
In both cases firing would be reactionary. Not primary. But the time you lift it into position an assailant already has first chance and more.
Both positions are completely defensive.
This is opposed to the standard state you see in movies or news of police here: the ‘high ready’ position with the barrel pointed forward and down. Or the ‘target ready’ with the barrel straight forward.
Also, AR15cv, this is not an automatic. There’s no spray n pray. This is a manual single fire rifle with self eject-and-load.
And your retelling of the events matches the misreporting of the news. Not the events told by witnesses on both sides during the trial.
In two cases Rittenhouse was walking, not running, when he was threatened. In the third he was trying to run AWAY from the threat.
Do I think he should have been there? Probably not the best judgement.
But he did what he thought was best for his community that evening. And this is the result of that choice.
But again, the protesters weren’t completely innocent either. Arson, vandalism, criminal destruction, theft, … there was reason for protection of property.
The three people he shot were shot because they actually threatened his life.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He went from his mother‘a town to his father’s. Auto help defend a local car company. And he was generally trying to help supply medical aid. Not shoot people.
He would wind up defending himself against 3 different white men.
That’s what the situation was.
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re:
Seriously: you are totally missing the premise behind the plans!
No. All you have put forth is a bunch of theoretical ideas.
Point to any single issue that would hurt the (no longer existing) poor with the triplet plan.
Correction. How a low income person loosing 2500 is not the same as a less low income person loosing 25000.
A flat tax is a percent, not a dollar amount.
No: I have not. Calling on mythical unicorns and gods and centors is not providing evidence.
Claims that rich people use loopholes via deductions today has zero crossover to a zero deduction system.
Inaccurate. I said you’re primary concern is making sure nobody has more than you do. Don’t be a sail fish fuck. Note a selfish moron.
Nor am I. I already stated my rough annual personal. And I would have zero security if not for my family having busted their arses over the centuries.
I’m a walking medical timebomb waiting to go off.
My mum is in a chair on o2. I’m damn close and should be if not for some genetic crap that somehow keeps me going. I’m barely mid-life. If I make 60… I may reconsider if our gods of olde have some value.
Our survival is dependant on a pension and very well selected stocks.
Musk et al. The difference is you have clear jealousy!
I recognise that existence is completely random and unguided chaos.
Well, neither will you or I with the flat tax triplet!
See previous statement. Guaranteed income levels eliminates poverty. It can be funded by 10% of all above it and 40% on corporate taxes.
Correction, anti internationalism, sanction the fuck out of Ukraine, leave the Middle East alone, secure the border, don’t touch my fucking rifle, son of a bytch. My birth mum wasn’t married. So I’m truly a bastard.
You provided zero anything, at all, as to how a 40% corporate 10% individual tax funded guaranteed income would make poverty worse.
True. That has nothing to do with the suggested plans which eliminate poverty.
fairness for all
And I’d rather make sure everyone thrived!
And I want to go after the source, not the recipient.
Your reaction is ignorance.
I own stocks
My family does too. I take it you don’t.
I am close friends with a ‘homeless’ vet who put nearly all of his pay into dividend paying stocks and lives off of it. Out of a Red Roof Inn +.
He has a bank account. SSD. Military payout. And his stocks.
Stocks are taxed when converted to spendable assets.
Sure there’s loss deduction. That would be eliminated under a flat tax.
Just because CNN told you they don’t pay taxes doesn’t make it true.
You don’t pay taxes till it’s traded. But they pay taxes!
As for bank accounts: interest is income. And taxed every year.
Sure rich people write off interest income against investment losses but again, that disappears under EVERY flat tax plan presented.
Don’t exist under a flat tax.
Yet fail to understand what a 40% corporate rate, 8 trillion dollars, and the social package that was attached to most flat tax plans, does to eliminate poverty. Not help! Eliminate!
Don’t libel and slander my view. All I support is a way to 100% eliminate poverty completely.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
If you actually care: I’d be happy to send you links to EVERY flat tax plan presented in the federal House/Senate over the last decade. (They’re on the senate and house .gov sites.)
You said you supported Sanders, yes? He sponsored 1 and supported (signed on to) 2.
AOC has supported one.
Those plans were
10% individual 40% corporate
12%/35%
10%40%
Sadly they often get shit down or stalled by Republicans. Though Obama’s dem majority kills one and Clinton’s dem majority killed 3.
Flat taxes doesn’t hurt the poor. It creates a path to eliminate the poor.
It raises them all up!
If at this point you still can’t comprehend how it’s possible… I’m sorry. And saddened!
Because it is possible. All we need is brave people to do so.
Law doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Nor does funding.
Based on 2020 numbers the pair of flat taxes, 10% personal and the common 10,20,40 corporate (>50, 50-500, 501+) would supply a total of 11.2 trillion to to the federal government. Per year.
That’s the AIB and BBB 5 times plus over!
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re:
I get it. It’s only good to kill super duper rich people or people that have more than you do right?
Pointing a gun at someone is a deadly threat. If you don’t want to die don’t point a gun at another person. Especially one with a gun.
If you want me to feel bad that psycho right wing nutters got shot for pointing a gun at someone… not going to happen.
The old adage of point gun—get shot!
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Demeentia?
Maybe æ, I could see.ia. Î.
But ee? ę even.
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re:
Says the person completely incapable of showing a single
Situation where such a plan hurts the poor.
Why don’t you just admit you don’t care if the plan helps the poor or not.
Just admit you only care about seeing to it that anyone with more than you, more of anything at all, needs to give up whatever they have that you don’t.
Just admit it’s not the poor you care about. It’s making nobody ever has something you don’t.
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re:
So where does this come into play. When everyone is guaranteed 24999.49?
20k and 25are the common starting point for flat taxing.
So would that not be a good cap rate for guaranteed income?
So now the poor make just shy of the minimum taxable rate.
No more poverty level.
You keep talking about the poor. The whole point of a fully tax funded social safety guarantee is to eliminate the pour’s poverty!
Then you no longer have the poor?
That’s not trickle down! It’s bottom up!
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re:
No it’s not. But a poor person loosing $0 and a middle $100 and a rich $1000 and a super rich $10000?
And your numbers are wildly off.
So I went with your insane $100.
But $2500 from 25k?
Or 25000 from 250k
Or $250,000 from 2.5m
Or $2.5 million from 25m????
All again simply ignoring 40% on corporations.
Still no evidence that the poor not paying taxes and getting a total and totally funded free safety net harms the poor.
On the post: The Latest Version Of Congress's Anti-Algorithm Bill Is Based On Two Separate Debunked Myths & A Misunderstanding Of How Things Work
Re:
Law of Diminishing Utility…
A socioeconomic theory that is mathematically inaccurate.
10% of 1000 is greater than 10% of 100. $100 has greater utility than than $10.
You simply dislike wealth and thus ignore anything that my allow it to be created.
Which can not be done under a flat tax plan. As there are no deductions.
… under graduated plans.
You have not shown how that would even be possible under a plan that doesn’t have deductions.
?? Isn’t that exactly was guaranteed income, free education, free universal health care… provides?
Doesn’t change that it’s equality though. Again, you simply hate those that have more than you do.
That doesn’t make your lack of ability to explain:
how the poor are hurt by a fully funded social safety and security plan.
Nor how the poor are hurt by paying less taxes
Nor how the poor are hurt because someone works 45 hours instead of 30.
Or how anyone is hurt by someone else having more of something.
Except flat tax plans have nearly always be introduced by Democrats.
No conservative in recent history would jump at a plan that
drastically increases corporate taxes
Removes all deductions
Forces them to pay taxes as they can’t loophole out of them.
Once again, this time with feeling:
Show any way, any way, that the flat tax plans hurt the poor.
Not how it doesn’t punish the wealthy who you want to all rot.
Anything, any way, it hurts the poor.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
On review
There may be a stumbling block here.
I ask as a jury would be asked. Set aside all the surrounding material not directly related.
Based on the surveillance footage he may not be quite so innocent.
To begin, his group appears to be monitoring the progression of the van. As it approaches the parking lot they flee the open view, drawing weapons, to near/behind the pickup.
I can’t tell who fired first from the video but it looks to be near simultaneous.
By running the audio through Microsoft’s live speech to text program, which is not what it’s meant for, we get some partial, but potentially harmful, Dialogue.
…here they’re coming…
…it’s (get?) ready… behind the truck… no go…
Shots.
The purely evil and (should-be-) criminal actions of the police notwithstanding;
Could this be a case of vigilantism? A group of poc attempting to take out white suprematists?
Is this a situation of self caused martyrising? By intentionally taking an offensive stance?
I take no sides here on the preceding aspect of the event. That’s for the legal system to untangle. But it is something to consider in our pondering of what was obviously a sad, sad, slate of events.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh, no, I haven’t. That would make me a firm of supporter of MSNBC and WaPo.
On the post: Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unfortunately the generic grouping is just dragnet and catches any alternative view in the process.
I don’t support PV per say. I support their right to say what they want just like MSNBC or OAN. Or the Daily Bizarre
Doesn’t matter if you like it or agree.
Be it The Word or Hustler Taboo.
The right to freedom of speech.
On the post: Minneapolis Man Acquitted Of Charges After Mistakenly Shooting At Cops Sues Officers For Violating His Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except nobody on either side is black.
Nobody involved in the case was black.
Next >>