Once you start noticing this sort of thing, you can't stop. Media is absolutely shot through with these little turns of phrase that promote legitimacy of organizations and ideas they like and cast subtle snubs on those they don't.
It's never worked on me, but I imagine it's terribly effective on normie cattle.
I'm completely failing to see a crime here other than "actions that damage the image of the Democratic Globohomo Party".
She was convicted of "conspiracy". Conspiracy to what? Where I live, laws are based entirely on the value of the item- your neighbor cut down 100-year-old tree that was the centerpiece of your landscaping? You're only going to recover the value of the lumber in court, they give zero fucks about the impossibility of replacing it or the intangible value of the thing. So what is the going market value for a diary that someone has already filled out?
Cue the mainstream media completely ignoring the story, or claiming he made it all up to impress somebody.
That was my take away as well. I wonder how many of those defendents regret not bringing weapons and taking some scalps in hindsight.
Why is some guy named "Oliver" whose profile pic looks like Mr. Bean bashing someone who is not Japanese for having opinions on Japan?
The city receives on average 1,800 to 2,000 applications a year from homeowners who want to alter their heritage properties, city staff told CBC Toronto in an email. "Almost all are approved,"
So what's the issue with changing the dangerous stairs then? Sounds like the work would be approved.
A city staff report to the TPB concluded the home's designation had little to do with its association with Caldecott. Instead, the report says the home is worth preserving because it was designed by prominent Toronto architect Eden Smith and because of the unique structural qualities he brought to the building.
Adam Wynne, a board member and chair of the Toronto and East York Community Preservation Panel, told CBC Toronto his own research shows that Caldecott only lived in the house for a few months before he died in 1907.
So, the heritage designation is not tied to the original owner, who barely lived there anyway. They're full of shit and are looking to modify the house in some way prohibited by the heritage status. The racist bullshit is just a pretext.
and his wife, entrepreneur and former Real Housewives of Toronto actor Roxanne Earle,
It's "actress" if you're a female, and I hardly think being a rich bitch in a reality show makes you one.
At this level of influence, I will keep my politics to myself.
Apparently he's a slow learner, but at least he learned.
Celebrities need to keep their mouth shut about politics. They have no special insight, and all it does is split their fan base.
the Arabs want to annihilate the state of Israel, you can call them monsters... We are not doing to them, they are doing to us.
Perfect! Substitute Arabs for Jews, and Israel for Germany, and you've got a typical quote from probably any Nazi rally in the 1930s.
There is zero self-awareness in this lady when she talks.
My fervent wish is that the Israelis and the Palestinians wipe each other out, both of them are a blight on this planet.
That being said, it's unintentionally hilarious that the group of people who won't shut up about the Holocaust 80 years later are also the ones who are most willing to discriminate against an ethnic minority within their borders. If Jews didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any at all.
If you want a watch something decent watch the original Shogun series.
I'm not a student of Disney history, so your post prompted me to do a little research. It sounds like Roy prevented Disney from being broken up was running things during the Disney Renaissance of the early 1990s, which is definitely the high point of the company in our lifetimes.
On the downside, his feud with Michael Eisner is what put Bob Iger in charge in the first place back in 2005. But that was probably inevitable anyway since Iger was Eisner's protege.
Am I the only one wondering how a couple of Jews have had a stranglehold on Walt Disney's company since the 1980s?
You're right. A single vote from a thoughtful person who researched the candidates and the issues and considered both their interests and the interests of the people as a whole when deciding who to vote for is outweighed by two burnout druggies who vote for the guy that says he's going to legalize narcotics. Now multiply that by millions.
Absentee ballots should be all but eliminated. Make election day they paid holiday so that no one has any excuse not to vote. The only people who should be voting remotely are military stationed out of state and people hospitalized or with disabilities that physically prevent them from getting to a polling site.
It will never happen, but I also think that you are not a net taxpayer you shouldn't be allowed to cast a vote. I don't let the guy at the office who isn't chipping in for lunch have a say on where we're buying from, so why do we let people with no stake in the matter vote on how to spend everyone else's money?
That's true. The only thing I can think of is a battery of tests that measure both your intellect and your character. Stupid=slave caste, but so would smart but evil. They would also have to be opaque enough that people couldn't figure out the "right" answers and coach their friends and relatives. Unfortunately, this idea will never be more than an intellectual exercise.
I don't doubt that it's technically possible to devise such tests, but I think in practical terms they could never be created for several reasons. First, anyone involved in building and administering the test system will taint it with their biases or attempt to use inside knowledge for their friends and family.
Second, it would require the world to acknowledge the big lie: all men are not created equal, they have various degrees of value based on their abilities and character. People are not going to tolerate having their rights and privileges adjusted to match their worth, because most would undoubtedly see a decrease in their autonomy as a result.
And there's the intellectual problem I can't reconcile.
Me: "Fuck off nanny state, you don't have a right to tell me what kind of gun I can own or what I can buy. I'm a fucking adult."
Also me: "Holy shit, that guy is fucking stupid. He shouldn't be allowed to own that item or do that thing because he's a danger to himself and others"
The Jeffersonian ideal of the noble yeoman farmer: a competent freethinking, self-sufficient citizen, has always been a fantasy.
Most people are nothing more than cattle with the gift of speech. They have little to no capacity for independent thought and are easily swayed by anyone with the rudimentary skills to manipulate them. Their ambitions and their abilities both confine them to toiling away it meaningless low skill jobs to acquire equally meaningless material goods.
The trick is devising the system that correctly categorizes people, where the stupid have the rights of a child their whole life because they basically are children and those with competence are unshackled from government controls that should never have applied to them in the first place.
Eh, take race out of it, and it's a simple breach of contract case:
The Atlanta City Council approved an ordinance for “the requested development provided that the developer met the maintenance and access conditions,” the complaint states, arguing the responsibility for maintaining the cemetery lies with the HOA.
If the HOA got zoning permission to develop the adjacent property into townhomes contingent on their maintenance of the cemetery, the city council simply needs threaten to re-zone the area back to what it was. I'm sure they'll find a way to clean it up pretty quick when all those rich homeowners start filing lawsuits against the HOA/developer because they're in danger of losing their houses.
I hear they've been working on the same section of highway near the Tacoma Dome for over 20 years now. I know they were working on it back in the early 2000s, and they were still at it when I visited there a year or two ago.
For perspective, the US spent less than 4 years fighting in World War II. Millions of soldiers trained, tens of thousands of ships, aircraft, and tanks built, and they could have done it all over again fives and still it would be less time than it has taken to rebuild a couple miles of highway in Washington State.
You're spot on that the elites are trying to convert everyone into pay-as-you-go peasants. However, I agree with someone who posted here a week or two ago these people are wicked and Machiavellian while simultaneously being naive and profoundly stupid.
The major reason that the West never had a communist revolution is that people with something to lose aren't inclined to revolt. No matter how bad it gets, almost everyone has a roof over their head and a full belly, plus lots of cheap entertainment as well. You really have to have nothing to lose in order to be willing to risk everything in a revolt.
If they get their way, it won't be "you will own nothing and be happy", it will be "you will own nothing and be miserable". A bunch of poor miserable people is the recipe for a revolution. Perhaps they think their wealth will protect them, but that wasn't the case in 1700's France, tsarist Russia, or any of the other bum fuck places that have had revolutions in the last 200 years.
By the time I left both my job and my husband, I had decided that neither relationship satisfied me. Both, in some ways, limited me, put controls on me and caused me unnecessary anxiety. I wanted agency, and wouldn’t settle for anything less.
Ah, there it is, she got bored of her husband and kicked him to the curb. I'm sure she had the honor to decline taking any of his money because she noped out of the marriage for no particular reason at all and he wasn't at fault, right?
Now, I still live in Harlem, although I upgraded to a nicer apartment,
I guess not.
Even if that were true, there's age appropriate education. They want to be teaching kids about this shit when they still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
"For example, many Canadians under 35 are unlikely ever to be able to buy a place to live," the report continues.
That couldn't be because you've allowed the Chinese to hide their money from their government by buying property in Canada. No, houses aren't for your own citizens to live in, they're better used as investment vehicles for foreign nationals- idiots.
It's so bad there are actually companies that these Chinese people hire to make their house look lived in when people got wise to the fact that there's a bunch of vacant properties sitting around owned by foreigners when they can't even afford a place to live.
Their skin tone coordinates with the wooden wall behind them.
Making the husband pay for opposing counsel is one of the worst things about a divorce and should be flat out illegal. In any other type of trial if attorney's fees are awarded it's after the fact, so all of your decisions were based on the possibility that you would have to pay.
The problem with assigning attorneys fees up front is that normally, part of an attorney's duty to their client is to explain the financial cost of what they're doing and allow the client to weigh that against the benefit. For example, if your case is going to cost $10,000 in fees, and can only possibly recover $5,000 in a judgment, the attorney should advise you of this and dissuade you from moving forward.
But if the other side is paying for everything, there is absolutely no incentive to not file frivolous motions or take other actions that rack up billable hours with little chance of success. The client isn't going to pay either way, so they're free to be as wasteful as they want.
The worst part is that it's so routine that when a co-worker of mine got divorced it was unusual that the judge granted his motion to not pay his spouse's fees. She skipped out on the bill, and her attorney forgot that she was on the hook and tried to collect from my buddy. He enjoyed telling that attorney to fuck off and that his client was probably never going to pay him.
I have no idea who this person is, but in the screen capture he looks like the guy begging at a local intersection. I'm certainly not going to click on his video and give him ad revenue.
There's a lot to unpack here. First, one of the things about America is that when something goes wrong the public demands a scapegoat. I think small minds don't want to deal with the fact that rarely is a problem just one (or a few) person's fault, that systems can and do fail both regularly and spectacularly. They want things tied up in a neat bow, and this conviction gives it to them: it was all a warped kid his parents failed to stop him. Let's put those three in jail, and all is right with the world. You can return to your regularly scheduled programming.
The second is that this is a further step in the gun control agenda. Anti-gun groups have been clamoring for years to hold gun owners responsible when someone gets ahold of and misuses their gun. They hit the gold mine with two very unsympathetic parents who are undoubtedly negligent. But don't think for a second these are the only kind of people they want to hold to this level of liability. Left-leaning states are already passing laws that if your firearm is stolen and you don't immediately report it to the police you are liable for anything the thief later does with it. Their goal is to dissuade people from owning guns because they become too much of a liability risk if they are lost or stolen.
Finally, even though the parents have the lion's share of the blame here, let's not forget that on the very day the shooting occurred the school did not feel that he was such a threat that he had to be sent home or the police be notified, and it sounds like they didn't even ask:
So if the very people who were on the ground at the shooting mere hours away from it occurring didn't see an imminent threat is it reasonable to expect that his parents would have had clairvoyance into his violent future?