Wtf? They don't disclose anything about where the money came from, just applaud that it's seized? Gotta keep your money in the jew owned banks or you're a criminal.
I mean the article itself reads pretty neutral to me, if devoid of much detail either. They're not complaining, but they're not cheering either, they're just saying "this happened".
And that's how I like it, I don't want journalists trying to tell me what to think, even when they are only echoing my own sentiments. My biggest complaint is a lack of detail as to why they're seizing the assets of a woman they're not charging with anything, surely they would at least ask the police to explain that even if they get "no comments on ongoing investigation".
It's because of bullshit laws about potential drug money etc IE they couldn't prove it but suspect because "there's no reason to ever have that much".
The real reason is, it allows the money to move with minimum tracking. They want you to move it via banks so they can lazily follow you around digitally.
Also so they can tax it as it leaves the country, tax it when it enters a different country, tax it again for any other bullshit reason.
They'll claim it's suspicious and a variety of other things , but really it could simply be, you want to move even just a state and prefer to do it with cash.
The money you "earn" in a ccountry isn't your money in their eyes. You're just tborrowing it.
It's not just for tax purposes, but also police funding. In short, the legal loophole to unlawful seizures involves the police department giving the money to the feds. The feds give the seizing department 80% of it back, which they are then allowed to spend on anything they want. Some departments rely on the money to fund their budget, and I recall one even had a margarita maker in their list of purchases.
No one wants to fix it, because the federal government gets free money for no effort, the police departments get to keep most of what they take, and politicians can pretend this is doing something to prevent drug crime or terrorism.
Oh, and you don't get a public defender when you fight to get your money back either, because you haven't been charged with anything.
This is why when people like you say "commercials don't work on me" I just double over with a deep laugh. Dumb people really can't tell how dumb they are.
The dog + cash photo shot in a drug-bust style really drives their emotional point home. Who knew that moving cash around without asking daddy government first was so dangerous to public safety?
Wtf? They don't disclose anything about where the money came from, just applaud that it's seized? Gotta keep your money in the jew owned banks or you're a criminal.
Because modern Journalists are nothing more than the Lügenpresse of the Antichrist.
And this is one of the reason I support shooting police dogs if they come at you.
because they're evil.
I mean the article itself reads pretty neutral to me, if devoid of much detail either. They're not complaining, but they're not cheering either, they're just saying "this happened".
And that's how I like it, I don't want journalists trying to tell me what to think, even when they are only echoing my own sentiments. My biggest complaint is a lack of detail as to why they're seizing the assets of a woman they're not charging with anything, surely they would at least ask the police to explain that even if they get "no comments on ongoing investigation".
It's because of bullshit laws about potential drug money etc IE they couldn't prove it but suspect because "there's no reason to ever have that much".
The real reason is, it allows the money to move with minimum tracking. They want you to move it via banks so they can lazily follow you around digitally.
Also so they can tax it as it leaves the country, tax it when it enters a different country, tax it again for any other bullshit reason.
They'll claim it's suspicious and a variety of other things , but really it could simply be, you want to move even just a state and prefer to do it with cash.
The money you "earn" in a ccountry isn't your money in their eyes. You're just tborrowing it.
It's not just for tax purposes, but also police funding. In short, the legal loophole to unlawful seizures involves the police department giving the money to the feds. The feds give the seizing department 80% of it back, which they are then allowed to spend on anything they want. Some departments rely on the money to fund their budget, and I recall one even had a margarita maker in their list of purchases.
No one wants to fix it, because the federal government gets free money for no effort, the police departments get to keep most of what they take, and politicians can pretend this is doing something to prevent drug crime or terrorism.
Oh, and you don't get a public defender when you fight to get your money back either, because you haven't been charged with anything.
This is why when people like you say "commercials don't work on me" I just double over with a deep laugh. Dumb people really can't tell how dumb they are.
Uh huh, solid argument, I'm convinced I'm just hallucinating the neutral tone now.
Glad you didn't waste your time explaining yourself in any way, it was better spent talking about commercials like that.
This country is really turning into a communist shit hole taking peoples money like this
The dog + cash photo shot in a drug-bust style really drives their emotional point home. Who knew that moving cash around without asking daddy government first was so dangerous to public safety?