https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation. If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their own politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then treated like religious icons?
On 6/17/2025 11:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a >> Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation. >> If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a
pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is
allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their >> own
politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city
streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then >> treated like religious icons?
I'd bet any bias is more about squeaky-wheel avoidance than politics.
On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:18:39 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/17/2025 11:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a >>> Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation.
If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a >>> pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is >>> allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their >>> own
politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city >>> streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then
treated like religious icons?
I'd bet any bias is more about squeaky-wheel avoidance than politics.
Well, if that's the goal, I can't imagine how all but calling up the Department of Justice and saying, "Sue us!" accomplishes that.
BTR1701
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation. If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government
is allowing some political and social messages but not others based on
their own politics.
danny burstein
Ed Stasiak
Heard on the radio and that the city of Windsor Canada (just to
the south of Detroit)
wait a second. Isn't Canada *north* of the "48 States"?
Heard on the radio and that the city of Windsor Canada (just to the south
of Detroit)
In <[email protected]> Ed Stasiak <[email protected]d> writes:
[snip]
Heard on the radio and that the city of Windsor Canada (just to the south
of Detroit)
wait a second. Isn't Canada *north* of the "48 States"? (Yeah,
Alaska and Hawaii are outliers).
Next you'll tell us to get from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean
via the Panama Canal you head _eastward_....
BTR1701
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation. If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a
pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government
is allowing some political and social messages but not others based on
their own politics.
Heard on the radio and that the city of Windsor Canada (just to the south
of Detroit) is discussing an ordnance that city government buildings ONLY
fly the flags of the city of Windsor, the province of Ontario, some kinda Frenchy-Canadian flag and the Canadian national flag.
Apparently there there are _hundreds_ of requests per year to the city to
fly this or that flag and of course the people whose requests are denied,
get all mad and claim racism/homophobia/sexism/botulism, etc and so on.
It's a pain in the ass and the city don't want to deal with it anymore.
https://i.postimg.cc/cCqmsFh7/temp-Image-Pl-KL5-G.avif
In <[email protected]> Ed Stasiak <[email protected]d> writes:
[snip]
Heard on the radio and that the city of Windsor Canada (just to the south
of Detroit)
wait a second. Isn't Canada *north* of the "48 States"? (Yeah,
Alaska and Hawaii are outliers).
Next you'll tell us to get from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean
via the Panama Canal you head _eastward_....
In <1031g9t$dvf$[email protected]> Rhino <[email protected]> writes:
[snip[
Certain border crossing points are also surprising. Windsor and Detroit
are separated by a river that basically runs north-south so when you
cross the border on either of the bridges or the tunnel, you are
travelling east to west when going from Windsor to Detroit, not
north-south as you would expect.
"either of the bridges"????? Counting the days until Gordie Howe opens...
Certain border crossing points are also surprising. Windsor and Detroit
are separated by a river that basically runs north-south so when you
cross the border on either of the bridges or the tunnel, you are
travelling east to west when going from Windsor to Detroit, not
north-south as you would expect.
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a >Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation. If >I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a >pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is >allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their own >politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city >streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then >treated like religious icons?
That should be the policy of ALL levels of government. I'm sick and
Apparently there there are _hundreds_ of requests per year to the city to
fly this or that flag and of course the people whose requests are denied,
get all mad and claim racism/homophobia/sexism/botulism, etc and so on.
tired of government pandering to the various groups that want their
flags flown. It inevitably has an air of favouritism or endorsement of
that groups views, whether it be the Rainbow Mafia, the pro-Hamas crowd,
or whatever. Government should not be seen as favouring one faction or >another but of serving ALL of its citizens neutrally.
For example, many Americans think of the border as being essentially the
49th parallel but that is only true from roughly Winnipeg to the
Pacific; east of there, the border is somewhat further south, with a
line roughly down the middle of the Great Lakes being the border in most
of Ontario. The southernmost point of Ontario (and Canada), Point Pelee,
is at the same latitude as Northern California.
Washington, from three-thousand miles away, may feel easier to ignore
than one's own pissed-off neighborhood.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:05:17 -0400, moviePig <[email protected]>
wrote:
Washington, from three-thousand miles away, may feel easier to ignore
than one's own pissed-off neighborhood.
You presumably mean Washington state - where specifically?
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation. If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their own politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then treated like religious icons?
On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <[email protected]> wrote:
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a
Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation. >> If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a
pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is
allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their own
politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city
streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then >> treated like religious icons?
It's happened again.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according to the Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other two.
My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both symbolic speech and political speech."
If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the flag of the Password People.
"But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags off the streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced against people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and burns it:
no consequences.
Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and rips it up: straight to prison.
On 6/26/2025 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <[email protected]> wrote:
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a >>> Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation.
If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a >>> pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is >>> allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their >>> own
politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city >>> streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then
treated like religious icons?
It's happened again.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according to the
Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other two. >>
My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag
desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both symbolic
speech and political speech."
If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the flag >> of
the Password People.
"But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy
something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags off the >> streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced against >> people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and burns >> it:
no consequences.
Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and rips
it up: straight to prison.
Afaics, FPP is present only in your recall.
But, no, it's not legal to burn the U.S. flag in a fireworks factory. Your rainbow-burning teen
would've been charged with a hate crime, not property destruction.
On Jun 26, 2025 at 2:22:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/26/2025 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <[email protected]> wrote:
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a
Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A violation.
If
I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk (or a >>>> pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is >>>> allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their
own
politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city >>>> streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and then
treated like religious icons?
It's happened again.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according to the
Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other two.
My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag >>> desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both symbolic
speech and political speech."
If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the flag
of
the Password People.
"But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy >>> something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags off the >>> streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced against
people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and burns
it:
no consequences.
Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and rips
it up: straight to prison.
Afaics, FPP is present only in your recall.
No, I've got a digital archive of all my posts. My newsreader auto-copies every post I make into a text document on my computer. That necessarily means I have a whole lot of FPP's claims saved as well, quoted in posts in which I responded to him.
But, no, it's not legal to burn the U.S. flag in a fireworks factory. Your >> rainbow-burning teen
would've been charged with a hate crime, not property destruction.
He can't be charged with only a hate crime. Hate crime is an enhancement to a predicate crime. One has to be charged with a crime first and only then can the hate enhancement be applied. But nevertheless, the enhancement is for the speech, the thought, the emotion, therefore speech is being prosecuted. The extra punishment you get over and above what you would get for the theft of the flag alone is punishment for your speech, which should not be allowed under the 1st Amendment.
On 6/26/2025 6:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 26, 2025 at 2:22:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 6/26/2025 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a
Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A
violation.
If I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk >>>>> (or a
pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is
allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their
own politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city
streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and >>>>> then
treated like religious icons?
It's happened again.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according >>>> to the
Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other >>>> two.
My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag
desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both >>>> symbolic
speech and political speech."
If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the >>>> flag of
the Password People.
"But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy
something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags off the
streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced >>>> against
people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and >>>> burns it:
no consequences.
Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and >>>> rips
it up: straight to prison.
Afaics, FPP is present only in your recall.
No, I've got a digital archive of all my posts. My newsreader auto-copies >> every post I make into a text document on my computer. That necessarily
means
I have a whole lot of FPP's claims saved as well, quoted in posts in which I
responded to him.
But you're speaking as though he were here and speaking for himself.
On Jun 27, 2025 at 10:59:15 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/26/2025 6:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 26, 2025 at 2:22:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
On 6/26/2025 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid mark on a
Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A >>>>>> violation.
If I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk
(or a
pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is
allowing some political and social messages but not others based on their
own politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city
streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and
then
treated like religious icons?
It's happened again.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according >>>>> to the
Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other
two.
My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag
desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both >>>>> symbolic
speech and political speech."
If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the >>>>> flag of
the Password People.
"But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy
something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags off the
streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced >>>>> against
people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and >>>>> burns it:
no consequences.
Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and
rips
it up: straight to prison.
Afaics, FPP is present only in your recall.
No, I've got a digital archive of all my posts. My newsreader auto-copies >>> every post I make into a text document on my computer. That necessarily >>> means
I have a whole lot of FPP's claims saved as well, quoted in posts in which I
responded to him.
But you're speaking as though he were here and speaking for himself.
No, just pointing out arguments that have been used in the past to justify prosecuting some flag-burners but not others.
On 6/27/2025 5:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 27, 2025 at 10:59:15 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 6/26/2025 6:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 26, 2025 at 2:22:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/26/2025 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <[email protected]> wrote:
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid >>>>>>> mark on a
Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A >>>>>>> violation.
If I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk
(or a
pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is
allowing some political and social messages but not others based >>>>>>> on their
own politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city
streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and
then
treated like religious icons?
It's happened again.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according
to the
Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other
two.
My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag
desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both >>>>>> symbolic
speech and political speech."
If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the
flag of
the Password People.
"But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy
something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags >>>>>> off the
streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced >>>>>> against
people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and
burns it:
no consequences.
Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and
rips
it up: straight to prison.
Afaics, FPP is present only in your recall.
No, I've got a digital archive of all my posts. My newsreader auto-copies
every post I make into a text document on my computer. That necessarily >>>> means
I have a whole lot of FPP's claims saved as well, quoted in posts in >>>> which I
responded to him.
But you're speaking as though he were here and speaking for himself.
No, just pointing out arguments that have been used in the past to justify >> prosecuting some flag-burners but not others.
Better, then, to quote rather than paraphrase or extrapolate ...though
I'm not sure what you think invoking FPP at all adds to the discussion.
On Jun 27, 2025 at 3:20:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/27/2025 5:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 27, 2025 at 10:59:15 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/26/2025 6:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 26, 2025 at 2:22:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/26/2025 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <[email protected]> wrote:
https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid >>>>>>>> mark on a
Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A >>>>>>>> violation.
If I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk
(or a
pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is
allowing some political and social messages but not others based >>>>>>>> on their
own politics.
Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city
streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and
then
treated like religious icons?
It's happened again.
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according
to the
Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other
two.
My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag
desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both
symbolic
speech and political speech."
If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the
flag of
the Password People.
"But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy
something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags >>>>>>> off the
streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced
against
people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and
burns it:
no consequences.
Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and
rips
it up: straight to prison.
Afaics, FPP is present only in your recall.
No, I've got a digital archive of all my posts. My newsreader auto-copies
every post I make into a text document on my computer. That necessarily
means
I have a whole lot of FPP's claims saved as well, quoted in posts in >>>>> which I
responded to him.
But you're speaking as though he were here and speaking for himself.
No, just pointing out arguments that have been used in the past to justify
prosecuting some flag-burners but not others.
Better, then, to quote rather than paraphrase or extrapolate ...though
I'm not sure what you think invoking FPP at all adds to the discussion.
Because traditionally when I say, "the Left has said", or "opponents have said", I'm immediately met with demands of "Who exactly says that?"
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing, >has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing, >> has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing, >> has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Jul 6, 2025 at 12:37:08 PM PDT, shawn <[email protected]>:
Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing, >>>has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Well, unless that billionaire is named Taylor Swift or George Soros or Oprah >or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Beyonce.
The Democrats' public hatred of billionaires is one of their most annoying >hypocrisies. Kamala had more billionaires on her side than Trump did,
yet they constantly spit the word billionaire out of their mouths like
it's solely a loathsome condition of the Right.
On Jul 6, 2025 at 12:37:08 PM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing, >>> has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Well, unless that billionaire is named Taylor Swift or George Soros or Oprah or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Beyonce.
The Democrats' public hatred of billionaires is one of their most annoying hypocrisies. Kamala had more billionaires on her side than Trump did, yet they
constantly spit the word billionaire out of their mouths like it's solely a loathsome condition of the Right.
On 7/6/2025 5:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jul 6, 2025 at 12:37:08 PM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]> >> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing,
has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Well, unless that billionaire is named Taylor Swift or George Soros or Oprah
or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Beyonce.
The Democrats' public hatred of billionaires is one of their most annoying >> hypocrisies. Kamala had more billionaires on her side than Trump did, yet >> they
constantly spit the word billionaire out of their mouths like it's solely a >> loathsome condition of the Right.
"Analysis by the Americans for Tax Fairness group earlier this year showed that 100 billionaire families donated $2.6 billion to candidates
for last November's election, more than two-and-a-half times the amount
spent in 2020.
The billionaires "heavily favoured Republicans", the report said,
with 70% of their donations going to the GOP, helping Donald Trump back
into the White House."
- https://theweek.com/politics/us-election-who-the-billionaires-are-backing
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
Jul 6, 2025 at 12:37:08 PM PDT, shawn <[email protected]>:
Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing,
has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Well, unless that billionaire is named Taylor Swift or George Soros or Oprah >> or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Beyonce.
Unless I missed it, Taylor Swift is in the business of being Taylor
Swift and doesn't overtly promote political causes.
In olden days, we
called such people "Republicans". All she wants to do is write songs
about surviving boyfriends who broke up with her over minor issues and
sell them to her huge audience.
The Democrats' public hatred of billionaires is one of their most annoying >> hypocrisies. Kamala had more billionaires on her side than Trump did,
yet they constantly spit the word billionaire out of their mouths like
it's solely a loathsome condition of the Right.
The Democratic Party was sold at a discount to billionaires. They
already held the Republican Party. The billionaire is on his own side.
The political party is mere convenience.
Somehow, Kamala pissed away their contributions so I guess they were
working for Trump after all.
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing, >> has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
On Jul 6, 2025 at 2:52:39 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <[email protected]> wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
Jul 6, 2025 at 12:37:08 PM PDT, shawn <[email protected]>: >>>> Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing,
has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Well, unless that billionaire is named Taylor Swift or George Soros or Oprah
or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Beyonce.
Unless I missed it, Taylor Swift is in the business of being Taylor
Swift and doesn't overtly promote political causes.
No, she came out squarely for Kammie. When she did, the media were giddy about >it and said it was potential death blow to Trump, considering how many >millions of young voters she could influence.
In olden days, we
called such people "Republicans". All she wants to do is write songs
about surviving boyfriends who broke up with her over minor issues and
sell them to her huge audience.
The Democrats' public hatred of billionaires is one of their most annoying >>> hypocrisies. Kamala had more billionaires on her side than Trump did,
yet they constantly spit the word billionaire out of their mouths like
it's solely a loathsome condition of the Right.
The Democratic Party was sold at a discount to billionaires. They
already held the Republican Party. The billionaire is on his own side.
The political party is mere convenience.
Somehow, Kamala pissed away their contributions so I guess they were
working for Trump after all.
On Jul 6, 2025 at 3:04:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 5:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jul 6, 2025 at 12:37:08 PM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government >housing,
has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Well, unless that billionaire is named Taylor Swift or George Soros or Oprah
or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Beyonce.
The Democrats' public hatred of billionaires is one of their most annoying >>> hypocrisies. Kamala had more billionaires on her side than Trump did, yet >>> they
constantly spit the word billionaire out of their mouths like it's solely a
loathsome condition of the Right.
"Analysis by the Americans for Tax Fairness group earlier this year
showed that 100 billionaire families donated $2.6 billion to candidates
for last November's election, more than two-and-a-half times the amount
spent in 2020.
The billionaires "heavily favoured Republicans", the report said,
with 70% of their donations going to the GOP, helping Donald Trump back
into the White House."
-
https://theweek.com/politics/us-election-who-the-billionaires-are-backing
Kamala Harris Has More Billionaires Prominently Backing Her Than Trump—Bezos >And Griffin Weigh In
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/30/kamala-harris-has-more-billionaires-prominently-backing-her-than-trump-bezos-and-griffin-weigh-in-updated/
Forbes found at least 100 billionaires in the corners of either former >President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris with 83 billionaires >supporting Harris and 52 backing Trump.
shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing, >>> has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
But the left keeps claiming that he’s lying and he’s not a billionaire, >he’s basically pennyless. So why do they hate him?
Is it just because he’s orange?
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Jul 6, 2025 at 3:04:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 5:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:Kamala Harris Has More Billionaires Prominently Backing Her Than Trump—Bezos
On Jul 6, 2025 at 12:37:08 PM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government >>housing,
has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Well, unless that billionaire is named Taylor Swift or George Soros or Oprah
or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Beyonce.
The Democrats' public hatred of billionaires is one of their most annoying
hypocrisies. Kamala had more billionaires on her side than Trump did, yet >>>> they
constantly spit the word billionaire out of their mouths like it's solely a
loathsome condition of the Right.
"Analysis by the Americans for Tax Fairness group earlier this year
showed that 100 billionaire families donated $2.6 billion to candidates
for last November's election, more than two-and-a-half times the amount
spent in 2020.
The billionaires "heavily favoured Republicans", the report said,
with 70% of their donations going to the GOP, helping Donald Trump back
into the White House."
-
https://theweek.com/politics/us-election-who-the-billionaires-are-backing >>
And Griffin Weigh In
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/30/kamala-harris-has-more-billionaires-prominently-backing-her-than-trump-bezos-and-griffin-weigh-in-updated/
Forbes found at least 100 billionaires in the corners of either former >>President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris with 83 billionaires >>supporting Harris and 52 backing Trump.
Isn't anybody going to tell D.T. who Malcolm Forbes was?
Mon, 7 Jul 2025 00:39:58 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]>:
Isn't anybody going to tell D.T. who Malcolm Forbes was?
I'll admit to being confused when the name was brought. Not because I
don't know Forbes but because in the context of the conversation I
thought he was an actor I was supposed to know but I couldn't place
him no matter how hard I tried. Never made the connection that you
weren't talking about an actor.
On Jul 6, 2025 at 3:04:24 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/6/2025 5:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jul 6, 2025 at 12:37:08 PM PDT, "shawn" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 6 Jul 2025 19:07:10 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <[email protected]>
wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government housing,
has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
Well, unless that billionaire is named Taylor Swift or George Soros or Oprah
or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Beyonce.
The Democrats' public hatred of billionaires is one of their most annoying
hypocrisies. Kamala had more billionaires on her side than Trump did, yet >>> they
constantly spit the word billionaire out of their mouths like it's solely a
loathsome condition of the Right.
"Analysis by the Americans for Tax Fairness group earlier this year
showed that 100 billionaire families donated $2.6 billion to candidates
for last November's election, more than two-and-a-half times the amount
spent in 2020.
The billionaires "heavily favoured Republicans", the report said,
with 70% of their donations going to the GOP, helping Donald Trump back
into the White House."
-
https://theweek.com/politics/us-election-who-the-billionaires-are-backing
Kamala Harris Has More Billionaires Prominently Backing Her Than Trump—Bezos
And Griffin Weigh In
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/30/kamala-harris-has-more-billionaires-prominently-backing-her-than-trump-bezos-and-griffin-weigh-in-updated/
Forbes found at least 100 billionaires in the corners of either former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris with 83 billionaires supporting Harris and 52 backing Trump.
On 7/6/2025 3:37 PM, shawn wrote:
BTR1701 <[email protected]> wrote:
New "make it make sense' subject:
The president has five kids, three baby mamas, lives in government
housing, has his own mugshot, yet the Left still hates him.
Make it make sense.
He's a billionaire so he's automatically on the wrong side.
And for a billionaire those aren't failings, but a tapestry...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:25:03 |
| Calls: | 12,097 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,858 |
