🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

A Dream, Crying, and Driving: soonish. There are no real problems with I know you are asking $1200 and that seems like a good price. Would you be willing to hold it until next week? I really need a car but I have to wait til my taxes come Sorry, I already told someone I wouldn't hold it. That's fine. I've had a hard time finder something reliable in my price range. I'm borrowing my moms car now, but it's tough to get me and her to work and my kids to preschool but were making it work. Hopefully l'll get my taxes back next week. No prob. I actually just want the car to go to someone who needs it. If you need it, you can have it. Thanks so much! I'll let you know as soon as the direct deposits comes through. So excited! No, I mean do you want the car for free? l wanted to make sure whoever got it actually needed it, so I didn't list it as free because everyone would have "needed" it, but probably just resold it What?? Are you serious? You don't have todo that, the price is fine. I wouldn't feel right not paying for it. No, srsly. I want to give it to someone who needs it, and you seem to genuinely need it. It's yours. No money needed I'm crying... are you kidding? Why would you do that? No, not kidding. I don't need it and I figured someone else did. I'm glad you'll be able to use it. Can you meet today or tomorrow? Are you sure? I'm so excited and cat believe this! You have no idea how much this will bless me and my kids! Omg, I'm literally crying right now Yes I can meet whenever you want but I deffnstly don't have money to pay for it right now Lol, no money needed! Really. (except to register it, I guess). Let me know if you need help with that too, I want to get you driving it ASAP THANKS YOU SOOO MUCH Are you real? This feels like a dream This is absolutely amazing !! A woman offered her car for free !
A Dream, Crying, and Driving: soonish. There are no real problems with
 I know you are asking $1200 and that
 seems like a good price. Would you be
 willing to hold it until next week?
 I really need a car but I have to wait til my
 taxes come
 Sorry, I already told someone I wouldn't
 hold it.
 That's fine. I've had a hard time finder
 something reliable in my price range. I'm
 borrowing my moms car now, but it's
 tough to get me and her to work and my
 kids to preschool but were making it work.
 Hopefully l'll get my taxes back next week.
 No prob. I actually just want the car to go
 to someone who needs it. If you need it,
 you can have it.
 Thanks so much! I'll let you know as soon
 as the direct deposits comes through.
 So excited!
 No, I mean do you want the car for free? l
 wanted to make sure whoever got it
 actually needed it, so I didn't list it as free
 because everyone would have "needed" it,
 but probably just resold it
 What?? Are you serious? You don't have
 todo that, the price is fine. I wouldn't feel
 right not paying for it.
 No, srsly. I want to give it to someone who
 needs it, and you seem to genuinely need
 it. It's yours. No money needed
 I'm crying... are you kidding?
 Why would you do that?
 No, not kidding. I don't need it and I
 figured someone else did. I'm glad you'll
 be able to use it. Can you meet today or
 tomorrow?
 Are you sure? I'm so excited and cat
 believe this! You have no idea how much
 this will bless me and my kids! Omg, I'm
 literally crying right now
 Yes I can meet whenever you want but I
 deffnstly don't have money to pay for it
 right now
 Lol, no money needed! Really. (except to
 register it, I guess). Let me know if you
 need help with that too, I want to get you
 driving it ASAP
 THANKS YOU SOOO MUCH
 Are you real? This feels like a dream
This is absolutely amazing !! A woman offered her car for free !

This is absolutely amazing !! A woman offered her car for free !

Being Alone, Black Friday, and Christmas: el UNSAFE On CompuS scriminated against? Threatened Afrad to walk arund campus? We will walk with you ginger-ale-official: warriormale: yuuri-katsuki-on-ice: ladyflowdi: thefingerfuckingfemalefury: blackphoenix1977: pleatedjeans: Three cheers for these guys [x] This is how to be a good ally. Using their Bro-ness for good, not evil So a tiny story: on Black Friday a few weeks ago I went to Gamestop to buy my brother a game for Christmas, and I noticed this older man was watching me like a hawk. He was loitering around the front of the store without really buying anything, and every time I glanced at him out of the corner of my eye he was looking at me. I went to look at the PS4 games, and he was looking at something right behind me. I checked out the Nintendo games, and he was looking at them too. I was the only woman in the store, by the way. By the time I got in line to pay he was loitering at the front of the store again, and I just had that feeling that he was going to try and take the game I just bought, or steal my purse, as soon as I left the store. OR, he was going to try and follow me home. And I know I don’t have to explain that terror to any woman reading this, but all I could think was that I’m in this Gamestop alone with at least twenty other men and something is about to happen. I’m beginning to freak out, to the point where I’ve just pulled my pepper spray out of my purse and into the pocket of my coat.  So there I am, next in line to pay, and there is this GIGANTIC dudebro right behind me, and I say gigantic as a 6 foot tall woman. He says, “Ma’am? Don’t be offended, but would it be alright if I walked you to your car?” and I was like “Are you serious?” and he was like “There are some weird guys in here right now. Have you noticed that guy watching you?” and then I showed the dudebro the pepper spray in my pocket and he was like “Right on. Would you still let me walk you to your car?” and I said yes. So I paid, and waited while HE paid, and he walked me to my car. And just as I was getting in, the weird guy who’d been loitering came out of the store, saw me and my dudebro, and turned around and walked away in the opposite direction.  In short: men who recognize that women are unsafe in dark alleys, college campuses, grocery stores, gas stations and retail stores and do something about it are the kind of quality men that this world needs more of. Please for the love of god yes. The Warrior protects. He does this through his Prowess, his Ability to Protect. His fight Ability, combined with his Willingness to Protect, earns him Worth in the eyes of his fellow Men. Train and fight! Always protect those in need! WarriorMale Hohoho!
Being Alone, Black Friday, and Christmas: el UNSAFE
 On CompuS
 scriminated against?
 Threatened
 Afrad to walk arund campus?
 We will walk
 with you
ginger-ale-official:

warriormale:

yuuri-katsuki-on-ice:

ladyflowdi:

thefingerfuckingfemalefury:

blackphoenix1977:

pleatedjeans:

Three cheers for these guys [x]

This is how to be a good ally.

Using their Bro-ness for good, not evil 

So a tiny story: on Black Friday a few weeks ago I went to Gamestop to buy my brother a game for Christmas, and I noticed this older man was watching me like a hawk. He was loitering around the front of the store without really buying anything, and every time I glanced at him out of the corner of my eye he was looking at me. I went to look at the PS4 games, and he was looking at something right behind me. I checked out the Nintendo games, and he was looking at them too. I was the only woman in the store, by the way.
By the time I got in line to pay he was loitering at the front of the store again, and I just had that feeling that he was going to try and take the game I just bought, or steal my purse, as soon as I left the store. OR, he was going to try and follow me home. And I know I don’t have to explain that terror to any woman reading this, but all I could think was that I’m in this Gamestop alone with at least twenty other men and something is about to happen. I’m beginning to freak out, to the point where I’ve just pulled my pepper spray out of my purse and into the pocket of my coat. 
So there I am, next in line to pay, and there is this GIGANTIC dudebro right behind me, and I say gigantic as a 6 foot tall woman. He says, “Ma’am? Don’t be offended, but would it be alright if I walked you to your car?” and I was like “Are you serious?” and he was like “There are some weird guys in here right now. Have you noticed that guy watching you?” and then I showed the dudebro the pepper spray in my pocket and he was like “Right on. Would you still let me walk you to your car?” and I said yes.
So I paid, and waited while HE paid, and he walked me to my car. And just as I was getting in, the weird guy who’d been loitering came out of the store, saw me and my dudebro, and turned around and walked away in the opposite direction. 
In short: men who recognize that women are unsafe in dark alleys, college campuses, grocery stores, gas stations and retail stores and do something about it are the kind of quality men that this world needs more of.


Please for the love of god yes.

The Warrior protects.
He does this through his Prowess, his Ability
to Protect.
His fight Ability, combined with his
Willingness to Protect, earns him Worth in the eyes of his fellow Men.
Train and fight!
Always protect those in need!
WarriorMale


Hohoho!

ginger-ale-official: warriormale: yuuri-katsuki-on-ice: ladyflowdi: thefingerfuckingfemalefury: blackphoenix1977: pleatedjeans: Three...

Af, Being Alone, and Bad: Tom Sauer @thomasbsauer (THREAD) A few observations from a former bomb disposal officer G.e. Me) 1. Proper pipe bombs don't have wires connected to both ends. That's dumb. 1:15 PM 24 Oct 18 from Washington, DC 1,354 Retweets 1,736 Likes Tom Sauer @thomasbsauer 2. You can find timers/ remote control receivers WAY smaller than whatever that white box is. A proper timer would best be stored inside the pipe, making it fully encapsulated I hat thing is just silly looking 1:15 PM 24 Oct 18 from Washington, DC 224 Retweets 555 Likes Tom Sauer @thomasbsauer 3. Bottom Line: Whoever made that wanted it to be painfully obvious to anyone and everyone that it's a "bomb." This is nearly the same as a bundle of road flares wrapped together with an old-timey alarm clock ticking away. 1:15 PM 24 Oct 18 from Washington, DC 397 Retweets 1,005 Likes Tom Sauer @thomasbsauer 4, "Hoax Devices" are FAR more common than real ones. In which case, we should ask ourselves what the motives of the "bomber" are and "who benefits?" Go ahead. Think deeply and critically. 1:15 PM 24 Oct 18 from Washington, DC 387 Retweets 915 Likes robert-the-redhead-lover: skypig357: robert-the-redhead-lover: skypig357: robert-the-redhead-lover: skypig357: whiskey-gunpowder: skypig357: oldmarine1775: whiskey-gunpowder: the golden rule: if the media pushes something, be very skeptical. If MSM is pushing it, I promise you it’s total BS. If it were Republicans receiving these “bombs” you wouldn’t hear anything about it. Guess you’ve not seen the news. Press conferences. Arrest was made. It was legit. Not hoax devices and not a false flag. And if you don’t think the MSM would cover Republicans getting bombs in the mail you’re insane. Even if they hate republicans they’ll cover that for ratings. Money talks the media is nothing more than a left wing propaganda machine. they report narratives, not facts So is Fox News a right wing propaganda machine they reports narratives, not facts? If the media reports something you want to be true, do you think it’s equally Fake News? Also I’m not basing anything off the media, but the press conference that the FBI and Attorney General made noting the arrest and status of the devices. Then a basic search of the subject (Cesar Sayoc) gives you a trove of information https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-director-christopher-wrays-remarks-regarding-arrest-of-cesar-sayoc-in-suspicious-package-investigationFBI Director Christopher Wray’s Remarks Regarding Arrest of Cesar Sayoc in Suspicious Package InvestigationSourcing of all media is a good idea. Check and double check. But if you go down the rabbit hole of actual distrust and embracing conspiracy theories you’re lost. Weird how the FBI was able to get this guy so quick, yet missed the Parkland shooter, despite years of reports… DNA and fingerprints. If you’re in the system and you’ve committed a national crime, it’ll be over quick. He left evidence Even though I’m in the system (USN), it took them two weeks to run a background check on me when I applied for an airport job, but they nabbed this guy in less than 48 hours? I find that suspicious af. Dude. Your background check act of domestic terrorism that’s targeting politicians and media all over the news in an election year. If you find that suspicious I don’t know what to tell you. What’s the alternative? A conspiracy involving hundreds of FBI agents and techs, local and state law enforcement, postal service, and media? Are you serious? You don’t need all that when folks don’t question and just obey because they’re “taking care of the bad guys.” All you need are a few rotten apples at the top.But, none of those packages went through the mail. That’s given away by the lack of postal cancellation, as well as not enough postage.Otherwise, the timing is what I call suspicious. Hostage situations have taken longer. Hell, since you brought up domestic terrorism, it took them longer to find McVeigh and Kazinski (sp?) than this guy. Even assuming it is the right guy, do we know who he really is? If he was capable of organizing something like this by himself? If he working alone? If he isn’t the face of a larger scheme? It wouldn’t be the first time the “ lone wolf” angle being pushed by the media looked a little suspicious.As an aside, I love it when people get into pointless arguments about CNN vs Fox News and which one is “less biased“, as though they aren’t both owned by the same sort of people and used to pump out varying levels of propaganda for controlled opposition.
Af, Being Alone, and Bad: Tom Sauer
 @thomasbsauer
 (THREAD)
 A few observations from a former
 bomb disposal officer G.e. Me)
 1. Proper pipe bombs don't have
 wires connected to both ends.
 That's dumb.
 1:15 PM 24 Oct 18 from Washington, DC
 1,354 Retweets 1,736 Likes

 Tom Sauer
 @thomasbsauer
 2. You can find timers/ remote
 control receivers WAY smaller than
 whatever that white box is. A proper
 timer would best be stored inside the
 pipe, making it fully encapsulated
 I hat thing is just silly looking
 1:15 PM 24 Oct 18 from Washington, DC
 224 Retweets 555 Likes

 Tom Sauer
 @thomasbsauer
 3. Bottom Line: Whoever made that
 wanted it to be painfully obvious
 to anyone and everyone that it's
 a "bomb."
 This is nearly the same as a bundle
 of road flares wrapped together
 with an old-timey alarm clock
 ticking away.
 1:15 PM 24 Oct 18 from Washington, DC
 397 Retweets 1,005 Likes

 Tom Sauer
 @thomasbsauer
 4, "Hoax Devices" are FAR more
 common than real ones. In which
 case, we should ask ourselves what
 the motives of the "bomber" are and
 "who benefits?"
 Go ahead. Think deeply and critically.
 1:15 PM 24 Oct 18 from Washington, DC
 387 Retweets 915 Likes
robert-the-redhead-lover:

skypig357:

robert-the-redhead-lover:

skypig357:

robert-the-redhead-lover:

skypig357:

whiskey-gunpowder:

skypig357:

oldmarine1775:

whiskey-gunpowder:
the golden rule: if the media pushes something, be very skeptical.
If MSM is pushing it, I promise you it’s total BS. If it were Republicans receiving these “bombs” you wouldn’t hear anything about it. 

Guess you’ve not seen the news. Press conferences. Arrest was made. It was legit. Not hoax devices and not a false flag. And if you don’t think the MSM would cover Republicans getting bombs in the mail you’re insane. Even if they hate republicans they’ll cover that for ratings. Money talks 

the media is nothing more than a left wing propaganda machine. they report narratives, not facts

So is Fox News a right wing propaganda machine they reports narratives, not facts? If the media reports something you want to be true, do you think it’s equally Fake News? Also I’m not basing anything off the media, but the press conference that the FBI and Attorney General made noting the arrest and status of the devices. Then a basic search of the subject (Cesar Sayoc) gives you a trove of information https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-director-christopher-wrays-remarks-regarding-arrest-of-cesar-sayoc-in-suspicious-package-investigationFBI Director Christopher Wray’s Remarks Regarding Arrest of Cesar Sayoc in Suspicious Package InvestigationSourcing of all media is a good idea. Check and double check. But if you go down the rabbit hole of actual distrust and embracing conspiracy theories you’re lost. 

Weird how the FBI was able to get this guy so quick, yet missed the Parkland shooter, despite years of reports…

DNA and fingerprints. If you’re in the system and you’ve committed a national crime, it’ll be over quick. He left evidence 

Even though I’m in the system (USN), it took them two weeks to run a background check on me when I applied for an airport job, but they nabbed this guy in less than 48 hours? I find that suspicious af.

Dude. Your background check  act of domestic terrorism that’s targeting politicians and media all over the news in an election year. If you find that suspicious I don’t know what to tell you. What’s the alternative? A conspiracy involving hundreds of FBI agents and techs, local and state law enforcement, postal service, and media? Are you serious? 

You don’t need all that when folks don’t question and just obey because they’re “taking care of the bad guys.” All you need are a few rotten apples at the top.But, none of those packages went through the mail. That’s given away by the lack of postal cancellation, as well as not enough postage.Otherwise, the timing is what I call suspicious. Hostage situations have taken longer. Hell, since you brought up domestic terrorism, it took them longer to find McVeigh and Kazinski (sp?) than this guy.

Even assuming it is the right guy, do we know who he really is? If he was capable of organizing something like this by himself? If he working alone? If he isn’t the face of a larger scheme? It wouldn’t be the first time the “ lone wolf” angle being pushed by the media looked a little suspicious.As an aside, I love it when people get into pointless arguments about CNN vs Fox News and which one is “less biased“, as though they aren’t both owned by the same sort of people and used to pump out varying levels of propaganda for controlled opposition.

robert-the-redhead-lover: skypig357: robert-the-redhead-lover: skypig357: robert-the-redhead-lover: skypig357: whiskey-gunpowder: sky...

Bad, Blunts, and Dad: 50% COOL WAYS TO SAY ND TO WEED 1. Are you kidding me? Grow up 26.1 was raised right, I won't light. 2. Ganja is for goons, no thanks. 27. I'd like to keep my job, thanks. 3. Get a job you hippie wastoid. 28. You wish, pot junker! Back off 4. No thanks, I'm a good person. 29. I'm calling the Coast Guard 5.You need to go to jail, hempo. 30. No tokes for me. l'm cool 6. My dad told me better, no way. 31. Leave me be, you blunt blazer! 7. Grass is crass, also gross! Nol 32. No, I'm as clean as a whistle. 8. Uhhh.. no thanks loser! 9. Get away from me, THC addict. 34. I'll pass on your pot offer. 10. Yeah right, I'm way too smart. 35. Cannabis is crap, you cretin! 11. Let me think... No way, never. 36. Pish posh, pot is for the birds! 12. No. You are trash if you toke. 37. Nope. THC is not for me. 13. Back off, bucko. You're bad. 38. Step out of my zone, now. 14. I would rather not, okay? 39. Get off my case, weed stoner 15. Injecting weed is for dummies. 40. Nuh uh, I respect the police. 16. I will never do one toke. 17. Absolutely not, I love myself. 42. NOI Blunts are for bad men. 18. Get a grip you sativa snorter 43. I'd rather not die. Tokes kill. 19. Bugger off, you bong addict 44. No, weeds are for whacking. 20. I will use my taser on yu. 45. Marijuana is for morons, ok? 21. What do I look like? A failure 46. Are you serious? Get a life. 22. Nah, bongs are wrong 23. No way Hemp is horible 48. Stoners are loners. I'm good 24. I'd rather not be a canniba. 49. Nope! Spliffs are for wimps 25.I don't think so, l'm 33. That's a death "roach." No. 41. Lay off,I isten to the law. ay o 47. You're domb if you do "dank." m nice. 50. No, man. I follow MMYV www.facebook.com/MMYVofficial 13/10 choose 20 and 29!
Bad, Blunts, and Dad: 50%
 COOL
 WAYS TO SAY ND TO WEED
 1. Are you kidding me? Grow up 26.1 was raised right, I won't light.
 2. Ganja is for goons, no thanks. 27. I'd like to keep my job, thanks.
 3. Get a job you hippie wastoid. 28. You wish, pot junker! Back off
 4. No thanks, I'm a good person. 29. I'm calling the Coast Guard
 5.You need to go to jail, hempo. 30. No tokes for me. l'm cool
 6. My dad told me better, no way. 31. Leave me be, you blunt blazer!
 7. Grass is crass, also gross! Nol 32. No, I'm as clean as a whistle.
 8. Uhhh.. no thanks loser!
 9. Get away from me, THC addict. 34. I'll pass on your pot offer.
 10. Yeah right, I'm way too smart. 35. Cannabis is crap, you cretin!
 11. Let me think... No way, never. 36. Pish posh, pot is for the birds!
 12. No. You are trash if you toke. 37. Nope. THC is not for me.
 13. Back off, bucko. You're bad. 38. Step out of my zone, now.
 14. I would rather not, okay? 39. Get off my case, weed stoner
 15. Injecting weed is for dummies. 40. Nuh uh, I respect the police.
 16. I will never do one toke.
 17. Absolutely not, I love myself. 42. NOI Blunts are for bad men.
 18. Get a grip you sativa snorter 43. I'd rather not die. Tokes kill.
 19. Bugger off, you bong addict 44. No, weeds are for whacking.
 20. I will use my taser on yu. 45. Marijuana is for morons, ok?
 21. What do I look like? A failure 46. Are you serious? Get a life.
 22. Nah, bongs are wrong
 23. No way Hemp is horible 48. Stoners are loners. I'm good
 24. I'd rather not be a canniba. 49. Nope! Spliffs are for wimps
 25.I don't think so, l'm
 33. That's a death "roach." No.
 41. Lay off,I isten to the law.
 ay o
 47. You're domb if you do "dank."
 m nice. 50. No, man. I follow MMYV
 www.facebook.com/MMYVofficial
13/10 choose 20 and 29!

13/10 choose 20 and 29!