Started by bella! at 13,Aug,23 11:15 other posts of bella!
 | This thread is for questionable content. WHY? Just because! I am someone who enjoys the Hodge Twins. YEP, the Hodge Twins. They probably make the hairs on the back of a WOKE person stand straight up! Anyway..... |
Similar topics: 1.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 4.Be honest!! 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.
only registered users can see external links
Why is it people try to tie EVERYTHING to racism?
Are we going to have to change the color of BLACK PAINT to something "less offensive?
It mean it is is "Negro" in other languages.
The dark skys have always been referred to as "black skys"> Are we going to have to change that to?
When do people with some common sense stand up and say enough is a fucking nough and put the brakes on this BULLSHIT?
The word "Negro" comes from Spanish/Portuguese for "black" but is now generally considered dated and often offensive in English, largely replaced by "Black" or "African American" since the 1960s, though it was once a term of dignity used by leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois; exceptions exist for historical contexts or specific organizations (like the UNCF or Negro Leagues Baseball Museum) where it's part of the official name.
"What is the difference between negro and Negroid?
The suffix "-oid" means "similar to". Negroid as a noun was used to designate a wider or more generalized category than Negro; as an adjective, it qualified a noun as in, for example, "negroid features"."
How would You describe this man to the police without offending anyone?
I would describe him to a cop similar to what you did trying to be accurate and honest to help catch the crook. But if the crook was brought to trial, the fact that race was mentioned and such may degrade creditability of the witness's to the case as the description would be interpreted as racist and could spell no justice being served because of it.
IF you get caught starring at a woman's boobs and she complains you can give her a legitimate explanation as to WHY you are looking at her boobs.
What are the benefits of a man looking at breasts?
Men who stare at breasts are healthier | Aristocrat Plastic ...
Beautiful female breasts can inspire and keep men healthier, says a German study. The research says staring longer at women's breasts is as effective as some exercise. Gazing at breasts can lower the blood pressure and lower the resting heart rate which will lower the chance of cardiovascular conditions.
So since my recent heart procedure, I guess i have been doing myself a favor looking at boobs here.
I am being a smart ass with this paragraph i just typed because I am trying to expand on explain the idiocy of Racism taken to the extent folks are nowadays. Jingle bells being racist, sheesh.
I looked at a can of paint on the discount shelf this morning at lowes, Black, Negro- carbon.
only registered users can see external links
What has he ever done to you to make you hate him? How much damage has he done directly to your life?
Are you talking about Trump?
Enriching himself was his second goal, besides staying out of prison.
Trump is putting African dictators to shame, with his record corruption.
With every tariff announcement, his friends and family made a fortune
on the stock market, with insider trading, which is a crime. If he didn't
control the DOJ and the FBI, this would be investigated right now.
And, what has he done to you to earn such baseless loathing? You were fine with him until he ran for POTUS the first time.
from taking even more of Ukraine, the next time they feel like attacking Ukraine.
How can you expect Zelensky to agree with that?
Let's say he does sign it, how long do you think the "peace" will last?
Besides it may not matter anyway, Chernobyl is leaking due to a drone strike.
Yep, you got it right, we survived it, that doesn't mean we or anyone else haven't had side effects from it.
I remember when that plant in japan messed up, the radiation levels in the grain in the midwest US went up. Thanks to the radiation traveling by jet stream.
only registered users can see external links
I’m just over here, waiting for the shit to hit the fan somewhere, again.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Step 1: Find box.
Preferably not box Mama use for Mama special new toys Mama buy after Diabeto leave again to jail. Mongo sniff biggest one Mongo think it smell like turtle cage. Mama put all on dresser cos Mongo rip box. Mongo no tell Mama Mongo used biggest one. Mongo think this why now have ass cancer.
Step 2: Put Mongos dick in box.
If box 2 small Mongo smash it like bag of bread til it fit. Mongo legendary for Mongo retard strength. Mongo problem solver. Mongo pull trailer hitch after Mama Nissan Rouge transmission brake.
Step 3: Present box with confidence of man who comments sexy on pictures of Mama friend Lix.Let the lady her open box. No tell surprised like last time. Mongo forget ladies like Lyuba no lie hearing Mongo tell. Lying scarred think amigo sound like gorilla beating cage.
That how Mongo do holiday romance.
Sounds like pure “romance in a box” to me!
Good, over the moon that this happened! These, for the lack of a better term, numb nuts content creators are being held accountable for the crap they upload on the internet!
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I bet poor old Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 12 hours
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
There are lots of these accounts that pose as American MAGA,
which now are turning out to be located in countries that do not
hold democracy in high regard, to put it mildly. Isn't that strange?
only registered users can see external links
McGovern was Chief Creative Officer / Design Director, responsible for:
- Vehicle aesthetics (exterior & interior design)
- Brand identity (logos, marketing visuals, and overall “look & feel”)
- Concepts and styling of new models
McGovern did NOT decide the powertrain or corporate product strategy,
e.g., whether Jaguar becomes fully electric. That is the role of:
- CEO & Board (corporate strategy)
- Chief Product & Technology Officers (engineering, EV adoption)
- Marketing & Finance teams (market positioning, budget, risk)
He was responsible for the shift of Jaguar’s image away from its older, traditional base (classic luxury/“old British car” buyers) and instead reach a younger, more global, possibly more fashion- or lifestyle-oriented clientele: “a newer, international elite,” as some branding experts put it. There is nothing 'woke' or 'progressive' about that. The change felt too abrupt, too radical, and too detached from what made Jaguar; engineering pedigree, British heritage, the “soul” of classic carmaking.
Did this upset old conservative elites? Sure, but that doesn't make it 'woke'.
The heads of the company decided to make Jaguar 100% electric.
This designer probably thought that the customer base of Jaguar, didn't fit that strategy, so he tried to appeal to a younger customer base. I don't think he was wrong, but I am willing to agree with Jaguar that this is a big risk. The people who have the money to buy Jaguars tend to be 'older', affluent, conservative-taste luxury buyers. You can convince them to drive electric, but if you combine that with Avant-garde fashion, the old clientele will leave.
There is NOTHING 'woke' about trying to cater to the nouveau riche.
only registered users can see external links
A good actor can spot a bad one easily.
only registered users can see external links
The Economy could prosper and the people not because of high labor prices
If a large number of people in any country ,US included, are on income plans claiming mental illness, that financial burden drags down a country. You don't fix mental, it is a drain.
You find something those people can do to earn a wage if it is something as simple as sweeping floors
With benefits, it's the people who prosper, without it's the wealthy.
Your country is for 70% dependent on internal consumption.
It's not the wealthy who create a healthy economy, it's the people.
If the people have money to spend, the economy prospers.
The only escape from that economic principle is trade, but Trump created tariffs.
You said you don't care about trade, but if you want your economy to do well,
you need Americans to buy your products. Lowering wages is a downward spiral.
Your billionaires cannot spend your economy healthy.
Maybe you should think about people not spending money on useless expenses
to directly pay the wealthy, without creating economic activity. For instance, high rent
for buildings that have existed for decades. That's just a clear handout to the owners
of the buildings, that creates almost no economic activity. Another is health insurance.
It only takes a lot of money from everyone, to transfer money to the wealthy, without creating health benefits for the people. It damages the economy, because it reduces people's spending power, without creating much economic activity. They are leaches.
What's the cause of the high number of mental illness cases in your country?
I think that it's the individualism, and the anti-rationality movement.
/ˌindəˈvij(ə
noun
noun: individualism
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
"a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth"
h
Similar:
independence
self-direction
self-reliance
freethinking
free thought
originality
unconventionality
eccentricity
libertarianism
self-centered feeling or conduct; egoism.
2.
a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
"encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit"
So you are saying our mental illness is caused by freedom?
Let me paste this again so you won't miss it
"individualism
1.
the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
"a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth"
h
Similar:
independence
self-direction
self-reliance
freethinking
free thought
originality
unconventionality
eccentricity
libertarianism
In other words you think everyone should follow the leader,not think for themselves and just be a drone and they will be Your definition of mentally healthy??
you know better than that!
In that sense, it means the opposite of solidarity. It means you're on your own,
no communities of people helping each other in a time of need.
It is sold as freedom, but it actually strips the thing that made humanity prosper.
Yes, it is creating mental illness, to push people apart, like your movement is doing.
I am personally very much an individualist. I don't do anything just because it's what society expects of me. The term for that is "nonconformist individualism".
I am very much an autonomy-focused individualist. I value:
- Personal freedom of thought
- The right to choose your life path
- Not being pressured into traditional roles
- Authentic self-direction
This aligns with:
- Existentialist individualism (Sartre, de Beauvoir)
- Left libertarian / anarchist individualism
- Liberal humanism
- “Self-direction” in modern psychology
However, I am also a socialist, which means that I am definately NOT:
1) Atomistic individualist
- The belief that people are essentially separate, self-contained units
- Downplays interdependence
- Treats community as optional or irrelevant
- Often assumes social obligations = loss of freedom
This is the type many socialists (and sociologists) criticize.
2) Egoistic or competitive individualist
- Prioritizes self-interest above all
- Views society as a competition of individuals
- Measures success by outcompeting others
- Favors inequality as a natural outcome
This is incompatible with socialist values.
3) “Rugged” individualist
- “Everyone should fend for themselves”
- Distrust of social welfare, solidarity, public services
- Resistance to collective safety nets
- Often tied to neoliberal or libertarian-conservative ideology
This is the main type of individualism that I reject.
4) Market individualist
- Defines freedom mainly as consumer choice
- Sees society through a market lens
- Frames people primarily as economic actors
- Accepts or encourages large inequalities as a result of market outcomes
Definitely at odds with democratic socialism.
Is this all you had to say about that?
I was talking economics mostly. Got anything to say about that?
I am sorry, you are not 100% wrong but you sure aren't 100% right either. You have been indoctrinated to believe you have to depend on others to meet the simplest most basic needs in life. So sad really,I honestly can't even visualize your motivation to get out of bed in the morning.
Why would you think that?
How about the "I take care of my village" attitude?
To be indoctrinated, there needs to be someone doing the indoctrination.
There is none, it's 24/7 celebration of capitalism here too.
I cannot turn on the TV or radio, without being fed right-wing lies.
I recognize it, because I can think for myself, that's what happened to me.
I see what is happening, and I understand how to recognize causes.
There are simple facts that you cannot deny. Housing was mostly done by the government before, when most people could easily afford to rent, and a mechanic could buy a house. Then housing was left to 'the market', making investors wealthy, and now only couples with two highly paid jobs can afford to buy a house. Owning a house is the strongest wealth-building tool in capitalism, but the number of people who can afford it has gone done a lot and keeps going down. That's hard evidence for right-wing policies fucking the average person over. Why don't you understand?
I actually have a good reason to get out of bed, because my job is worthwhile and it pays well. Do you know how many Americans hate their jobs? They work and work and work, and they still don't make enough money to pay for a $500 emergency.
Do you think that is good motivation to get out of bed?
Everything is backwards with you, because YOU consume propaganda 24/7.
You are sharing it here. It's all designed to divide people, blame each other,
for why you're all working like slaves for peanuts, so you don't notice that
the wealthy are taking all your money.
How do you tell someone who is getting scammed that they're getting scammed?
What needs to happen to you, to make the blinders drop from your eyes?
No where is it in stone that life is easy,cheap or fair.
But if you want a future, no better time to learn how to work for it than when you are young and impressionable. The struggle ends 1, when you retire from a reputable company and have a good check coming in each month,or 2, when you die.
No where is it in stone life is fair,easy or cheap
Another thing, retirement is not the end of the struggle. You are looking at the income part only. Life is much, much, more than that.
If you waste your entire check living above your means,no you won't get there
Also, what happens with people like you and my ex? Both of you got injured. Are you a dumb f…k because you got hurt? And what happens if the retirement fund goes insolvent and your pension stops?
Like what? Work 100 hrs/week?
I just told you that a mechanic could afford a house, on 40 hrs/week, when I was young. I'm talking about my father, who first bought an apartment and then a pretty big family home, only a few years later. Interest on mortgages was around 10% back then, and you had to pay a significant sum from your pocket.
My father was the family provider and my mom was a stay at home mom.
Buying a house like my father bought, today, takes TWO people, both with higher educations, and good steady jobs, to afford. A mechanic cannot even afford to RENT on their own anymore.
Do we all need to be managers or lawyers now? Are mechanics still allowed
to live a decent life? Or do they all need to work 100 hrs/week?
You're also not consistent; when we talk about education becoming unaffordable, you are saying that people don't need it, they should just be a tradesperson.
And now you are telling people to work and study hard to get good grades to get a scholarship to help pay the cost of college. Where are those scholarships coming from? Can everyone get them? This is obviously not a solution for everyone.
Even if everyone is working and studying the hardest that is humanly possible,
then scholarships are STILL going to the few smartest people.
Why do people need to do all this "finding ways to make more money",
when they didn't need to do that before?
That 500,000 dollar house was 230,000 dollar, not even 2 decades ago.
Wages didn't go up that fast, so what happened?
Why did life get less "fair,easy or cheap" in only 20 years?
You keep giving nonsense reactions, to obvious problems. Be more honest.
I will pm the rest,
You're still not addressing the fact that tradespeople could afford to buy a home and support a family on one income. More people are working than in that time, but people are less well off, even if couples are both working. That's just a fact.
This is not just bad for tradespeople, it's bad for the whole country.
Didn't you say that you wanted America to make stuff again?
To make stuff, you need people to want to be tradespeople,
instead of everyone picking educations to be managers and lawyers.
If you want America to split itself off from the rest of the world,
and you want to close the borders to trade, you need to create
a strong internal economy. You cannot do that with poor people.
America was at it's strongest when the middle class was booming
and you had high taxes on the wealthy, which paid for big investments.
Now your middle class is suffering and your country is losing its place
in the world. The ideas that you support are clearly the cause of this,
but you keep supporting those failed ideas. The US is crumbling.
There is nothing MAGA about it, when Trump is clearly destroying America.
Trump is clearly "winning" too much, and he IS destroying your country.
I don't know how to translate this money to Us dollars
only registered users can see external links
That's $53,918.27/year, $25.68/hour. Google can easily convert it for you.
Just ask "Ђ22 in dollar" and it tells you.
There are of course many types of mechanic, at different levels of education.
At $53,918.27/year, the mechanic could get a mortgage between $215,656 and $269,570. There are still some houses in some areas of my country for sale at that price, but the house of my parents is 3 times the value.
only registered users can see external links
If you work for 10 years and make $1,000,000, you pay $300,000–$400,000 in taxes.
Who thinks it is fair to get taxed for working, but not for just getting it?
Could it be organized more fairly?
I know Anannas thinks when family dies all their money and stuff goes to the state to be dispersed among those that did nothing for it.
What people miss is if a person looses a parent or loved 1, that money is not free, it cost them their father ,mother or etc. Taxes were already paid.
Land and material things, taxes and fees have been paid for length of time of ownership.
Why is worked taxed so high and inheritance so low?
The answer is NOT "because the parents already paid their taxes".
We can fix that and tax working LESS and tax having lost of money MORE
and tax generational transfer of money MORE.
Why is EARNING money taxed so much more, than HAVING money
and just GETTING money that you haven't EARNED yourself?
You're only focusing on the parents, not on the kids.
Didn't I ask: "Could it be organized more fairly?"?
Why is it fair that some people don't have to work, because their parents are rich
and some people have almost no chances to make it, no matter how hard they work,
because their parents are poor? Is that fair?
Why is winning the birth lottery rewarded and working punished?
phart, lay off on this one, let quint answer.
You already answered for me, don't answer for him too.
just because you don't want your family to be better off than you when you pass away doesn't mean others don't love and care for their kids.
it is simple jealousy from those who parents were drunken hippies and didn't leave them anything that complain.
Generational wealth transfer is the cause of the problems, NOT the solution.
People's kids WILL be poorer than them, because politics favors the wealthy.
You should want those kids to be ABLE to make a life for themselves.
My father bought his first apartment at age 25. How old does the current generation need to be, before their parents die and leave them some money, to finally be able
to buy a house?
Houses are scarce goods, they are either owned by the people who live in them
or they are owned by the wealthy who ask top dollar for them, to become more wealthy and buy up more houses. It's our generation that can still make a choice to have people own their own homes, and prevent that the wealthy own everything.
Remember your side being outraged about the phrase "you will own nothing and be happy"? This was a prediction made by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in a 2016, and your side is turning it into a reality. TAX THE RICH, or be happy owning NOTHING.
only registered users can see external links
Note this video was made in 2022, and they are talking about how bad the economyiis crashing! Who was pres then?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I only do business with 1 place that does not take cash and that is the county dump. And I complain to the commissioners all the time about it
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
No bills, no problems
No problems? One tiny infection can kill you.
What do you think his teeth are like? Would he still have some?
Maybe you would have more rational political insights, if you wouldn't romanticize
living like a wild animal or some caveman. You are probably still recovering somewhat from a medical intervention that saved your life, but instead of absorbing that into your worldview, you think people are better off living like we did 10,000 years ago.
Understand that even the poorest person in the modern world has a much better
quality of life than the people back then. About half the children died before the age of 5, from some disease, accident or being eaten by a predator.
Every Day Began With Uncertainty. A person woke up not knowing if they would eat that day. Seasons mattered brutally: winter or drought could mean days with almost nothing—maybe a handful of nuts, bitter roots, or dried meat if they had been lucky enough to store some.
Cold, heat, wind, and rain all mattered more than any predator.
Clothing was animal hide, often stiff, smelly, and poorly insulating. Shelters were drafty huts or temporary camps. A single storm could wipe out a group’s food stores, trap them indoors, or kill the very young and the very old.
Aches, injuries, and infections were simply part of existence.
- No painkillers beyond plants that dulled the senses
- No medical treatment for sprains, fractures, or infected wounds
- Teeth worn down from grit in stone-ground food
- Parasites, fleas, lice
Most adults lived with chronic pain that would send a modern person to the ER.
Large predators still roamed in many regions—lions, wolves, cave bears, saber-toothed cats (in earlier periods), hyenas.
Even more dangerous were simply:
Falls, Cuts that got infected, Snakebites, Fires and Conflict with other groups. Any of these could be fatal.
Parents expected to lose children; grief was constant, quiet, and communal.
Whether hunter-gatherer or early farmer, work was exhausting.
For hunters:
- Track animals for hours or days
- Carry heavy meat back to camp
- Face dangerous prey
For gatherers:
- Bend and kneel for hours collecting roots, seeds, nuts
- Process plants by scraping, pounding, grinding
For early farmers:
- Dig, plant, weed, haul water
- Defend fields from animals
- Store grain or risk starvation
While some individuals lived into their 50s or even 60s, the average life expectancy was dramatically pulled down by:
- infant deaths
- infections
- accidents
- childbirth risks
- malnutrition
Living to 30 was already an accomplishment.
Anxiety was a permanent companion:
- Will we eat tomorrow?
- Will the weather turn?
- Is that sound a predator?
- Are other tribes approaching?
There was wonder, community, and meaning—but also relentless uncertainty.
The only upside I see from that time is that the tribe helped each other to stay alive. Nowadays, people are completely isolated from each other. People are selfish, because that is idolized as the goal for self improvement. The sad thing is that people who support that selfish system often point to 10,000 years back, calling it "survival of the fittest".
That is very dishonest propaganda to justify inequality, because it is the opposite of what evolution teaches. Humans survived because of cooperation, resource sharing, division of labor, caring for the vulnerable and group solidarity.
they didn't have micro plastics in their water. They didn't have jet fuel particles falling on them from the sky. They didn't have covid,
So many things they didn't have that we have to deal with today.
IF 1 caveman stole another cavemans woman that cave man could wack the thief over the head and get his woman back.didn't have to go thru divorce either if they spilt up.
Question is, did a form of racism exist back then?
Is there an evolutionary explanation for racism?
Another theory from evolutionary psychology is that racism may have evolved as an “energy-saving” strategy. To interact or mate with ethnically different groups would have involved a lot of time and energy, through coordinating with different social norms.
right-wing news outlets, they were worried if they would survive the oncoming winter.
Coronaviruses have been around for millions of years, long before humans existed. Paleovirology has found some evidence that we inherited some resistance from the Neanderthals. Still, they died of so many diseases that we consider mild today.
And of course modern medicine has conquered several horrible diseases.
Unfortunately, modern anti-science is bringing some of them back.
The behavioral tendencies for racism are probably very old, but back then tribalism overruled it. People didn't just distrust other races, they distrust everyone outside of their tribe. It's behavior that is even observed in apes.
What I've read about it is that we have evolutionary tendencies to determine in-groups and out-groups, but racism emerged from cultural, political, and economic forces.
Racism as we understand it today—fixed, hierarchical, and global—emerged primarily in the last 500 years, driven by:
- colonial expansion
- the transatlantic slave trade
- European imperial ideologies
- scientific racism in the 18th–19th centuries
Slave trading has been going on for thousands of years, but it wasn't based on race. Read the bible and see how the Jews had different rules about owning slaves for Jews and everyone else. That was not based on race, because everyone in that area looked the same. It was based on in-groups and out-groups.
I don't think it's based on energy conservation, I think it's based on power preservation.
For a dominant group, defining another group as “inferior,” “different,” or “dangerous” creates:
- a boundary around the in-group
- a rationale for unequal treatment
- a story that justifies their power
This makes it easier to maintain control without relying solely on force.
Racism provides ideological cover for distributing benefits unequally: land, jobs, political rights, education, wealth and safety.
By claiming that some groups are “naturally suited” to labor, or “less civilized,” or “less intelligent,” the ruling group can preserve advantages and restrict competition.
A key principle of power is: It’s easier to rule a population that is divided than one that is united. Racism:
- creates divisions among the working class or subordinate groups
- prevents coalitions that might challenge the dominant group
- redirects frustration toward minority groups instead of toward the powerful
It legitimizes coercive institutions. Cultural beliefs about racial difference allow the in-group to build institutions that reinforce inequality, such as:
- segregated schools
- restricted voting rights
- discriminatory policing
- immigration controls
- unequal legal systems
These become seen as “necessary” instead of oppressive.
It stabilizes the dominant group’s identity. Power is not only material—it is also psychological. Racism gives the in-group:
- a sense of superiority
- a justification for their privileged position
- a shared identity built around dominance
This creates emotional cohesion within the ruling group.
It masks the real mechanisms of power. Racism can make inequality appear:
- natural
- inevitable
- rooted in biology
- the “fault” of the oppressed group
This hides the structural causes, allowing the powerful to avoid accountability.
Thus, racism is not an evolutionary adaptation, it is a cultural strategy that societies can (and often do) use to maintain power structures.
only registered users can see external links
I guess the democrats run similar experiments on adults. give them everything then tell them the republicans are going to take it away! instilling fear in them at election time to win their votes yet again.
only registered users can see external links
was 81.9% at the end of the second quarter of 2025.
In the second quarter of 2025, the U.S. government's debt-to-GDP ratio was 119.4%.
If the EU is broke, the US is much more broke.
The EU is asking the UK for “billions”, but these are not arbitrary demands; they are part of a legally binding Brexit financial settlement. It’s the UK repaying agreed obligations as part of the Brexit exit deal.
So, you're just parroting filthy lies for a political reason.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
"Markets don't crash when things look bad, they crash when the forces
holding everything together finally break"
only registered users can see external links
Real economics destroying the wealthy's favorite lie.
Well apparently you CAN live without a brain!!!
only registered users can see external links
I don't think it's possible to live without any piece of brain.
Still that aint much.
the parrot has that much brain!and he can talk!
How about knowing early in the development of the zygote/fetus, that the child
will end up like this, and giving the woman the choice to end that pregnancy?
" oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125" abort abort abort!
You may rest easy killing the unborn, but i can't
Really? Do you think that people are thinking that, about their pregnancy?
You have strange ideas about people.
If there are people like that, I very much think they shouldn't have children.
But, let me answer your slippery slope fallacy, with a whataboutism.
If murder is illegal, how can people still defend themselves?
The answer: Because we "draw the line" with LAWS.
You may rest easy by killing people in boats, who are drugs smugglers at worst, without a day in court. Those are living and thinking people, the unborn are not.
Your ideas are forcing women to carry and give birth to a child like that,
and then have parents or society care for a vegetable 24/7 for it's life.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other if abortion exists. I just don't want my tax dollars to fund what is, essentially, an elective medical procedure.
That was exactly in line with my meaning.
It's a slippery slope argument. Here is an example:
"If trespassing is illegal, then why are Jehovah's Witnesses not arrested?"
Reverse logic: "If listening to music is legal, then why can’t people
blast it at airplane-engine volume in the middle of the night?"
Why don't you want your tax dollars to fund elective medical procedures?
The only difference between emergency care and elective medical procedures
is that an emergency is needed to prevent the patient from dying right-now,
while elective medical procedures can be scheduled in advance, because
the life of the patient is not in immediate danger.
The next examples are all elective medical procedures:
- Hip replacements
- Knee replacement or reconstruction surgery
- Most hernia repairs
- Cataract surgery
- Gallbladder removal (when not emergent)
- Heart bypass surgery (when not done during an active crisis)
What makes it better for you, to fund these medical procedures through
for-profit insurance, instead of tax-dollars? Do you think that you will never
need an elective medical procedure?
Unless the Jehovahs had to defeat some sort of barrier, such as a locked gate, or they ignored a sign warning them to keep out, they may still enter, until such time you demand they leave. If they refuse to leave, or if had they defeated barriers or ignored signage, then they have committed the crime of trespass.
It seems a basic understanding of trespassing laws is in order here.
Then there is the elephant in the room. How can you equate joint replacement and other serious medical procedures with abortion? That is a false equivalence argument. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison! One may be pregnant and still function normally in most physical activities, such as walking, reading, etc. How can one function if he cannot see or walk, or is living in constant severe pain? Really!
Abortion IS an elective procedure, one that historically has demanded that I fund it without my consent! You don’t have to get pregnant. It is a choice that involves a certain voluntary activity for a vast majority of the cases, whereas people rarely choose to lose the function of joints and organs. Pregnancy is 100% preventable! Aging is not!
I’m surprised you didn’t also throw insulin into that mess, with the attitude you’ve displayed thus far!
You’re scraping the bottom of the logic barrel, grasping at totally unrelated medical procedures in an attempt to justify using other people’s money for a procedure that could easily have been prevented!
That’s just lame.
that was the whole argument. I'm explaining the slippery slope argument to you, because you didn't understand it the first time, and it's going right over your head again.
I am arguing against pharts argument "where do you draw the line?",
saying "oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125, abort abort abort!"
The "line" that we draw is the law. The same law that defines the limit between Jehovahs entering your property and trespassing, which you specified.
So, there could be al law that keeps abortion legal, but excludes the reason that it's IQ would be lower than 125, or whatever other nonsense phart makes up.
We we talking about abortion for a fetus that develops without a brain, like the woman from the article that phart shared. Do you you have an opinion on that?
Do you think that every fetus with abnormalities or genetic diseases should be born, even if they are sure to live like a vegetable or will likely die immediately after birth? That's what Republicans are enforcing now, so your primitive thinking about who funds it, is a bit unsatisfactory for all those women who must deliver a baby that has no chance at a normal life, and the parents who have to care for it, the rest of it's life (if it dies young) or the rest of their life (if it doesn't die young).
We are talking about abortion being legal or not, not if it is funded with tax-dollars.
It was YOU who said that elective procedures shouldn't be funded by tax-dollars. That includes joint replacement and other serious medical procedures.
But, since we are talking about money. Do you understand the energy, time and MONEY that a severely disabled child costs? With your broken healthcare system, a child like that is unaffordable. If parents cannot meet that burden, is your government stepping in? Are you OK with your tax-dollars funding all those severely disabled people, because Republicans took away the CHOICE to abort them?
Is it a false equivalence to compare abortion with joint replacement and other serious medical procedures? It fucking well isn't, when Republicans are excluding abortions for DEAD fetuses. The total abortion ban has already caused 59 deaths of women with abnormal or death fetuses, and the ACPM estimates potentially 210 additional maternal deaths per year in certain states as a result of abortion bans. That makes abortion more important than a joint replacement, in a lot of cases. How can one function, when they are DEAD?
No, pregnancy is not 100% preventable. Many girls and women get r@ped. Republicans in some red states are already banning abortion for r@pe victims.
Do you think every fertile female should be on anti-conception, in case they get r@ped? Also, anti-conception is not 100% effective. The end result is that many women get pregnant unintentionally, without any fault of their own.
Let's throw insulin into that mess. Who is grasping at totally unrelated medical ... , here? (it's not even a procedure)
I think it should be either 100% covered by insurance or funded by taxes.
With your attitude, I expect you don't.
Again, no one was talking about who pays for abortions, until YOU did. We were talking about abortions being allowed by law, or not. Most abortions can be performed with some pills. I am fine with people paying for them out of pocket.
In 75% of the cases, abortions in the US are performed because the woman
is not financially secure enough to take care of it. So, if you don't like abortions,
maybe start thinking about solving that. Even giving birth itself sets people back on average $2,743. Do you think giving birth is an elective procedure?
And even if some women are getting pregnant due to their own stupidity, do you think that those dumb-asses should be parents? How about having people wait with parenting, until they have some idea that they are up to the responsibility?
Why do people like you always support ideas that fuck up your country?
It's very clear that you don't have an IQ limit for abortions. DAMN!
**** is 1 of the few exceptions i would negotiate a settlement to make frivolous 1's illegal. I would like to know where you get the 75% number being because of money issues.
A quick googleing,
"The predominant themes identified as reasons for seeking abortion included financial reasons (40%), timing (36%), partner related reasons (31%), and the need to focus on other children (29%).Jul 5, 2013
Understanding why women seek abortions in the US - PMC
National Institutes of Health (.gov)"
That tells me alot, that tells me that most of them could very easily be prevented by simply keeping legs closed and zippers up or give the poor guy a "hoover" job and move along.
R@pe should be covered by the rapist with his assets being put in a trust to take care of the baby once born if the mother chooses to keep it or pay for the abortion and the fellows food while rotting in jail.
Convenience abortions should be paid for out of the woman's pocket or the mans pocket or both. since it took both to create the situation, ideally both should cover the cost. IF the woman even has a clue who's it's daddy.
Timing and partner reasons are mostly financial too. That's where the 75% comes from.
That mostly of them COULD be prevented is probably true. That's not reality though. Women get pregnant unintentionally, and the reason can be an argument for who pays for it, but not for it being illegal.
Do you think having children should be punishment, for being stupid?
I sort of agree that careless people need to pay for their own abortion,
but look at it this way: the people who cannot pay for it are in the worst position to take care of a child.
Why do you want all those unwanted children, being raised by stupid people,
in desperate financial need? Don't you think your country has enough losers?
You are complaining about your drugs problem, but that is not a supply problem, that is a demand problem. And your idea of putting more losers on this earth
is creating the demand.
“What about the **** victims?” they declare while wringing their hands.
Typical. It’s always the worst case scenario, every time, when abortion is questioned!
The vast majority of abortions NEVER involve sexual assault. They rarely do. Only a tiny percentage of “****” victims ever get pregnant from the assault.
This is the moral equivalent to saying, “In order to prevent drunk driving, we must force everyone blow into a breathalyzer in order to start their cars, because some of them like to drink and drive."
H.R. 3, with the exception of a few narrow categories that have been accepted for many years, provides that the Federal Government shall not make taxpayers pay for, subsidize, encourage, or facilitate abortions or insurance coverage that includes abortion.
I have no problem with being called stupid, if you can show me to be wrong on anything.
Instead, you show you don't understand basic concepts.
Wheel barrow,only works when pushed!
Don't work, and sit at home?, then loose your ass,
only registered users can see external links
10,000 dollar bonus for being there for the American people to insure their safety!
I am surprised the damn union let them work,
If their job IS providing safety, then when are they 'going beyond the call of duty'?
Here is an assessment of ChatGPT:
Overall Assessment
Yes, there is strong evidence that many TSA agents are serious about safety and do their job diligently. The high rate of firearm detection, combined with TSA’s public statements about security priorities, supports that view.
But no, the picture is not totally unblemished:
- There are genuine risks in how TSA handles internal misconduct (per the OIG report).
- There are serious policy and legal concerns around discrimination (e.g., transgender screening).
- There are tensions between security and operational efficiency.
- Labor unrest could erode performance or morale going forward.
That last sentence leads me to believe that they might deserve a raise, instead of a one time bonus. A bonus can be a good temporary motivation, but it doesn't attract new personnel. If they deserve $10K, better raise their wage by $5K-$8K and add a bonus program for achieving goals of $2K-$5K.
only registered users can see external links
He should have known to not be friends with people who challenge you to do stupid things.
They just want to have a laugh at your expense.
only registered users can see external links
I don't know what you mean with "in theory". Do you understand that your freedom
of speech is dependent on someone else's freedom of speech?
If you can say by law: "I fucking hate 'N-word's", is it then also legal by law to say:
"If you say the 'N-word', I fucking kill you!"? It's all just speech isn't it?
That's why your Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment to allow for specific, narrow exceptions or limitations on certain categories of speech that are considered unprotected or have lesser protection. The government may regulate these types of speech, which include:
- Incitement to "imminent lawless action"
- True Threats
- Fighting Words
- Defamation
- Obscenity and Child Pornography
- Commercial Speech (false or misleading advertising)
- Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions to expressive activity
So, do you think there should be 'truly freedom of speech', which is being able to say,
whatever you want say, without legal repercussions?
Or do you think there should be some legal limits?
I don't understand why you add 'unashamedly'. I would say that shame over speech is either dependent on your own morality or on the morality of 'common sense', which we are all contributing to. In any case, everyone is 'free' to say shameful things, because it doesn't result in restrictions of your literal freedom (prison, fines or damages). If you are ashamed yourself, by your own speech, that means that you stepped over your own norms of what is socially acceptable. If you get shamed by other people for your speech, it means that you stepped over THEIR norms of what is socially acceptable. For being able to say anything unashamedly, it means dropping all norms of what is socially acceptable.
One consequence is that any man can approach any women to express all his sexual desires, in explicit detail, even if he controls her professional and financial future.
I would say that dropping all social norms would be deleterious to society.
Stepping over norms what is socially acceptable to say, could result in people not liking you and excluding you socially and professionally. We call that cancellation nowadays.
To achieve free speech with regards to shame, cannot be accomplished by law. It means that society drops all social norms for how we treat each other. It means that people can say whatever they want to you, no matter how hateful or terrifying, without you thinking:
"I don't want to deal with this person anymore.".
Is this the world you want to live in?
Would it be possible in theory? What kind of society would it result into?
Or is the whole concept of society based on what is socially acceptable?
It's always "free speech for me, but not for thee".
I agree that being offended is not a reason to take people's speech away, but that's not what she is defending. Most of her ilk is defending literal incitement, threats, defamation and doxing, which is indeed 'offensive', but also puts people in danger, because there are always stupid people who act on the words of someone who thinks that they are only being 'offensive'.
She will probably also attack 'the left' for getting Charlie Kirk killed.
No one actually did incitement, threats, defamation or doxing against him,
but the left still gets blamed. If she wants 'true freedom of speech', I hope
she defended every liberal and lefty who ever criticized Charlie Kirk and defended
Jimmy Kimmel. Do I even have to look to know that she obviously didn't do that?
The fact that all your favorite politicians are still alive,
is evidence that Obama isn't doing what you think.
When liberals start killing, you wouldn't know what hit you,
because they outsmart you 10 to 1.
Don’t forget the largest armed force in the world are the hunters in the United States 🇺🇸 and 90 percent of them are republicans
Don’t take my word for it look it up for yourself
When you want to kill a snake, you cut off the head.
Sure, the tail will flop around aimlessly for a while, but it will die soon.
That's you, 'not knowing what hit you'.
That's why it's stupid to think that there is a mastermind behind Charlie Kirk's murder, unless it's right-wingers or Netanyahu. Charlie Kirk was a grifter for your cause, but he was having second thoughts about the genocide, mostly because
the young people he caters to don't like it. There is even a record of Charlie saying that he was afraid of getting killed for his defiance against Netanyahu and Trump.
Here is Netanyahu, feeling the need to reject the idea, in his own paper.
only registered users can see external links
That's a strong confirmation of my claim.
Anyone with a brain understands that killing Charlie Kirk would not help liberals and lefties. It removed ONE voice in thousands, and that voice was starting to diverge from the rest. Someone who is NOT diverging will fill his shoes.
It might be his widow, who is has been grifting off his death, before he was even in the ground. It's a sickening display, even for me, who really didn't like Charlie Kirk, but at least admired some of his skills. He was a goldmine for analysis of truth twisting and debating tricks. I miss him a lot more than Trump misses him.
Here is the grieving widow, dressed like a couch, to woo her new love:
Bye Usha!
It's your own side that claims that Charlie Kirk feared Netanyahu.
Since the murder, one weird claim after another has been surfacing.
The constant redressing, the constant assembly and disassembly of the rifle, the messages that don't sound like a young adult who was fully engaged in gamer culture, but confirm every move in the FBI story. It's exactly what you expect from a corrupt and incompetent FBI, which is what it turned into under Kash Patel.
He has shown the world what a bad liar he is, when he claimed that there is no credible information that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women and under@ge girls
to anyone other than himself. Really? What about the island and all those flights?
Prince Andrew lost his royal style, titles, and honours, including the title of "prince" and "His Royal Highness", because of Epstein's trafficking. Maybe Patel thinks that YOU are stupid enough to believe him, but the rest of the world doesn't have shit in their heads.
It's also several people on your own side who have expressed public criticism
or even outrage over the interaction between Erika Kirk and J.D. Vance.
If this happened between liberals, you would not shut up about it for years.
She said on camera: “No one will ever replace Charlie, but I do see some similarities of my husband in JD, Vice President JD Vance,”. Note how she put "but" in that sentence. She is definitely thinking about replacing Charlie, there.
Before that even happened there was already talk about Usha wanting a divorce.
There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others. You are free to refute any statements or opinions with which you may disagree with your own protected speech. In the alternative, you may also ignore it, if you choose. Silencing or threatening to silence others with whom you may disagree is, indeed, a slippery slope down which we must not go.
Who is to say your own ideologies or opinions may not also someday be subjected to censorship, should circumstances change?
That is what free speech means. It means you don’t have to play, if you don’t want to, or, you may play, if you want. It also means you are not allowed to stop others from playing, as long as they’re not violating the rights of others.
Your rights end where mine begin. Always keep that in mind.
In reference to cancellation, this is already the world in which we live today. People are cancelled regularly for having differing opinions. Denying that this exists is either done in ignorance, or else, ii is an effort to support an insidious agenda to restrict ideologies that counter one’s own. There is nothing new about this, however. Cancellation is as old as humanity itself. Homicide and attempted homicide are part of that cancellation, as recent events have shown us.
That, too, is as old as humanity.
Read again what you wrote, because your either intending to say:
"Categorizing unprotected harmful speech as part of “free speech” opens the door to people's rights being violated."
or "Categorizing “free speech” as part of “harmful speech” opens the door to the censorship of opinions.."
I know what you mean, and I agree. That is not the limits of freedom of speech
that I'm talking about.
"There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others."
"There is no need to limit protected speech" Exactly!
Why are you arguing against something that I'm NOT saying?
"as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others." Exactly!
You are agreeing with my exact position on the matter.
I am definitely NOT denying that cancellation exists.
And indeed (attempted) homicide is the most extreme version of cancellation.
According to your first amendment, the law is responsible for protecting free speech,
but ALSO to protect people when their rights WERE violated by the speech of someone else, primarily through civil lawsuits for specific types of "unprotected" speech, such as defamation, harassment, or true threats.
The law in my country is very much similar, and I fully support it.
When Trump is using his FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr, to put pressure on ABC and
its parent company, Disney, to take action against Jimmy Kimmel, which led to the temporary suspension of Kimmel's show in September 2025, for speech that DIDN'T threaten, harm or violate the rights of anyone, that was clear censorship and a clear violation of the First Amendment.
If Jimmy Kimmel was doing defamation, then the victim has a right to start a civil lawsuit against him. However, the president is not just a private citizen. Government officials are protected against defamation, but they face a much higher standard of proof, compared to private individuals when they sue someone for speech related to their official conduct.
Trump would have clearly lost a civil lawsuit against Jimmy Kimmel, so he decided to cancel him, using his FCC Chairman. Trump has admitted this and shows clear intent
of doing more like it to lots of others.
only registered users can see external links
They are probably also anti-fascism, but is that a reason to call them 'Antifa'?
There is no organization called 'Antifa'. There are many people protesting against fascism.
At some point in history, millions of people died fighting against fascism.
Your whole country was against anti-fascism once. What happened to you?
If you get hit, who ya gonna call?
and the street, because the video blurs her. Either the cop is blind as a bat,
or she was hard to see.
It looks to me like a failure from everyone involved.
Reportedly people urged her to not keep laying there.
If she didn't want to or couldn't get up, at least
stand in front of her, so she doesn't get run over.
Or put your own car in the way, to keep her safe.
The presenter is at least correct to say that this should be investigated.
Police has the tendency to never take responsibility. That should be changed.
only registered users can see external links
I guess the russians learn from history how to drop unconventional things.
only registered users can see external links
Is that a reason to celebrate them in this conflict?
What's the intent of this video?
that they are using soup cans for munition.
You can take whatever you want from it.
That's why anecdotes like this are useless to understand the complete picture.
Russia Might Soon Run Out of Money for the Ukraine War
only registered users can see external links
Russia to Sell Debut Yuan Bonds as War-Driven Deficit Widens
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Short: only registered users can see external links
Long: only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
She was denied by 26 churches, but the one mosque she called immediately agreed.
It's already picked up by Islamic channels to show how they are better than Christians.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Pretty damn smart, from a public relations standpoint, isn't it?
However, are many Christians not donating to their church, so they can do CHARITY?
Why are they not helping a mother in need to feed her baby then?
watch the end, gota read it and hear it!
only registered users can see external links
Probably only going to happen in the movies.
only registered users can see external links
If you don't understand what a big middle finger he is giving you, the average American, then you have to read up on the meaning of the novel. Trump doing this is very much
a self own, which he obviously doesn't understand. It is still completely tone-deaf to hold such a party, when the government shutdown has furloughed many hundreds of thousands government employees, and makes many work without getting paid. It was held just hours before millions of Americans lost their federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits due to a government shutdown.
Maybe Trump saw the movie, and saw Leonardo DiCaprio playing a character who had a dream and won. This is how he sees himself, a winner of the American dream.
(of course he isn't, his father was, and he is just a nepo-baby)
Trump clearly likes the spectacle of the Roaring Twenties, the glittering parties, the jazz, and the dizzying wealth. He is turning the White House in a tacky display of opulence,
just like his homes. This is his ideal, and he doesn't understand how the story, which the movie doesn't do justice much, makes it out to be a hollow and tragic existence.
He doesn't understand how the novel was intended as a social critique, exposing the harm the wealthy inflict on society. Through the characters and events of the novel, it illustrates how wealth leads to moral decay, carelessness, and ultimately, tragic consequences.
The character amassed his fortune during the Prohibition era through an association with the notorious gambler and mobster Meyer Wolfsheim. His main enterprise involved bootlegging, primarily by operating a chain of drugstores as fronts to illegally sell alcohol over the counter. The parties are heavily related to the use of alcohol during Prohibition.
It would be even worse, if Trump does understand the meaning of the movie. It means that he knows what role he is playing in the world. It's a possibility, because he has been talking about not going to heaven. However, then he must also understand the image he is leaving with this party. Since he cares a lot about how he is remembered (he wants a Nobel Peace Prize and his face on Mount Rushmore), I don't think he is capable of the self-mockery.
To be clear, I didn't read the novel, I just saw the movie, understood the idea behind it, and found people on YouTube talking about it. When I heard that Trump had a Great Gatsby party, I first thought that people who criticized him for it, called it that. I thought that was very appropriate. I just found out that Trump himself INTENDED the reference to The Great Gatsby, because he called it "A little party never killed nobody", which is the title of the song by Fergie, which was made for the movie. My reaction was of deep contempt. It's not his worst act of disrespect to the American people, by a long shot, but it might be one that gets recognized as it, by most Americans. So, I'm here talking about it, to hear about it from you. How do you like your president holding a lavish party, with wealthy people, that he himself referenced to The Great Gatsby, (now) knowing the meaning of it?
Emergent Self-Awareness in Vegetables: A Concerning Development
Earlier this month, researchers at the University of Helsinki reported what appears to be
the first case of sentient plant matter: a bell pepper exhibiting facial expressions consistent with fear. Subsequent tests showed measurable electrical activity when the specimen was approached with a knife.
Within days, similar phenomena were observed in other produce, particularly root vegetables and leafy greens. One cabbage was recorded rotating itself slowly away
from sunlight, “as if attempting concealment,” according to the study.
The implications are profound. Ethical committees worldwide are now debating whether harvesting vegetables constitutes harm, effectively rendering veganism, long considered the most ethical dietary choice, a moral paradox.
As of today, no safe, guilt-free food source has been identified. Experts recommend consuming only minerals “until further notice.”
ANd this is complicated too.
with what genitals they were born, all make me very happy.
It was appropriated by white libs, who added lots of other meaning to it, and later twisted by right-wingers to mean whatever the most extreme lefty green-haired teenage lesbian can think of, and then accuse every liberal of supporting that.
However, you also love racial prejudice and social injustice.
We all have the same rights already because the constitution says so.
Some like to play victim and blame their circumstances instead of admitting they are lazy bastards not willing to make the effort to overcome obstacles.
The Constitution says a lot of things, it doesn't guarantee that you respect it.
If there are more obstacles for some groups of people than other groups of people, that IS social injustice.
there is no stream that leads to convincing the closed mind.
My mind is not closed, matter of fact, I would say it is more open than yours.
Reason i say that is you are totally unwilling to accept the fact that some folks are simply evil, simply lazy, simply waiting for handouts, and they LOVE your mindset of free health care, free food ,free housing and on. it leaves them worry free to do more evil, lay around in bed and get fat ON YOUR DIME.
I have never said that I don't accept that some folks are simply evil, simply lazy, simply waiting for handouts, I just don't accept you making it an argument for EVERYTHING. That idea is rejected by all the great results of public systems, everywhere in the world.
There is no such thing as free health care, free food, free housing, there are
2 options: privately funded and publicly funded. When it's privately funded, someone is making a profit and the people have limited control over it.
When it's publicly funded, no one is making a profit, only people who work in it get paid and the rest goes back into the system, and the people have democratic control over it. This is undeniable.
One example, your healthcare system or the British NHS. Both crap, but the British system achieves a higher life expectancy and a lower infant mortality at less than half the price, because you have private, for profit insurance and they have a single-payer, publicly funded universal system.
I have told you this many times, they are just straight up facts, it should be basic knowledge to you, but you keep saying these nonsense straw-men. That means your mind is closed to even INDISPUTABLE arguments. I'm not even talking about what is better, you're just unwilling or incapable to even UNDERSTAND it. When you keep saying 'free', it means your mind is completely closed.
only registered users can see external links
After the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, "stay woke" became a rallying cry for BLM activists to raise awareness of police brutality and racial injustice.
2014–2017: Mainstream adoption. As the BLM movement gained national and online prominence, white liberals increasingly adopted the term "woke". Initially, this was an attempt to signal their support and act as allies for racial justice. During this period, the term began to be applied to a wider range of social justice issues, a trend that accelerated on social media platforms like "Black Twitter".
2017: Recognition and dilution. In 2017, the Oxford English Dictionary added "woke" to its official entries. Some linguists and critics argue this mainstream recognition formalized the term's "semantic bleaching", a process where a word loses its original, specific meaning through wider usage.
2019: Co-option by the right. The term had been weaponized by right-wing commentators and politicians who used it pejoratively to dismiss progressive ideas. This conservative co-option was a direct response to the term's adoption
by progressive activists, including many white liberals.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
BUT aside from that, you are talking about trying to make peace with a terrorist group. Not a group of disgruntled miners. You can't expect terrorist to keep their word. They actually dug up 1 hostage and re returned him!! nasty barbarians.
I tell you what Cat ,all jokes aside,and Ananas to, , if either or BOTH of you negotiate some kind of peace deal that frees hostages. negotiate trade deals that equalize things across the board for all economy's and make some effort to clean up government waste, then I will nominate YOU for the damn prize? How about it Cat? You up to the challenge? if not, get out of the way of people that ARE!
Netanyahu orders Israeli military to carry out strikes on Gaza immediately
Daniel Keane and Harriette Boucher
At least eight people have been killed after the Israeli prime minister ordered his military to immediately carry out “powerful” attacks on Gaza.
His presidency boosted Trump's net worth by $3 Billion, in a year.
That's because all the presents from the people he does favors for.
In June, Trump’s clemency actions have relieved persons of about $1.348 billion in fines, restitution and forfeitures. However, various news-and-analysis sources indicate that the total number of clemency actions (pardons + commutations) by Trump in 2025 exceeds 1,600 as of mid-year.
Trump has set up a system of unchecked corruption, with selling his worthless products for ridiculous prices, crypto scams, NFTs, coins, $1 million-per-plate fundraising dinners and $1 million golf club fees. There is clear evidence of 'quid pro quo', but with the DOJ in his pocket and the Supreme Court that made him immune to the law, he can be as corrupt as he wants, with full support, and complete denial from his supporters.
Recent events include:
- October 2025: Trump hosted a dinner at the White House for wealthy donors who pledged contributions to a $200 million ballroom project.
- May 2025: A $1.5 million-per-head dinner was held for "crypto and AI innovators"
to raise money for the MAGA Inc. super PAC.
- March and April 2025: Several "candlelight dinners" at his Mar-a-Lago estate and his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club were reported to have a $1 million per plate cost.
- April 2025: Another $1 million-per-plate dinner was held for the MAGA Inc. super PAC in Washington, D.C
When events are hosted at Trump-owned properties, such as Mar-a-Lago or his Bedminster golf club, his businesses receive direct payments from the super PAC for venue rental, catering, and other services. Some dinners have been linked to the promotion of his personal business ventures. For example, a $1 million-per-head dinner for crypto and AI innovators reportedly involved some attendees paying for their seat using Trump's own branded cryptocurrency, the value of which he and his business partners personally profit from.
The MAGA Inc Super PAC has raised $198.9 million between the election and the end of June. The nonprofit Securing American Greatness, which is a dark money group because it does not disclose it donors, is raising unknown sums. Anonymous sources claim that the two groups together have raised $400 million. Those PACs have also advertised on Truth Social, providing Trump with personal income, as the majority shareholder. However, other Republican politicians primarily provide financial benefit
to Donald Trump by using political funds from the MAGA Inc Super PAC to pay for services at his private businesses.
Furious MAGA Customers Say They Got ‘Scammed’ by Trump Watches.
only registered users can see external links
They are too stupid to understand that it's only intended for 'quid pro quo'.
You're only supposed to buy them to enrich your king or to buy a whole crate of them, after he pardoned you. Don't expect any value from the product itself.
Trump is also, at this very moment, gearing up to start a war with Venezuela.
That's why he is blowing up those boats. He is building a case against them.
No one believes that Venezuela is smuggling a lot of drugs to the US,
but Trump wants Venezuela's OIL. Here he is admitting to it, 2 years ago.
only registered users can see external links
Cocaine Transit, not Production: Venezuela is not a major producer of cocaine; production is concentrated in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia. Due to its location and weak state institutions, Venezuela serves as a transit country for a portion of Colombian cocaine, but it is not the primary route to the U.S..
Marginal Route: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) data consistently shows that the vast majority of U.S.-bound cocaine (around 74-80%) is trafficked through the Pacific Ocean via Central America and Mexico, not the Caribbean. DEA reports in recent years have not even mentioned Venezuela in their cocaine sections.
Fentanyl Claims Baseless: Experts and U.S. agencies agree that Venezuela plays virtually no role in the production or trafficking of fentanyl to the U.S.. Fentanyl is primarily manufactured in Mexico using precursor chemicals from China and smuggled over land across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Lack of Public Evidence: The Trump administration has not publicly provided concrete evidence, intelligence, or data to support its claims that the boats it struck were carrying drugs, let alone the quantities or types of drugs alleged.
Intelligence Community Contradictions: A classified assessment by the U.S. National Intelligence Council reportedly contradicted the administration's claims, finding no evidence of coordination between senior Maduro officials and specific drug cartels like Tren de Aragua.
While Trump denies planning a full-scale war, the U.S. has a significant military presence in the region, is conducting lethal operations, and is implementing policies focused on weakening the Maduro regime and its control over the country's OIL resources.
That's admitting it's about the OIL, while denying it's about the OIL.
It's 100% sure not about the drugs.