Jump to content

Chrispy

banned
  • Posts

    1906
  • Joined

Posts posted by Chrispy

  1. 16 minutes ago, DigDug said:

    Tiger has this look on his face like he's in a non-stop continual wince.   Or it could be a lot of gas, it's probably gas.

    I’ve noticed it also, strange. He needs to drain this putt on 14 and get another stroke back on 15.

    • Fuck You 1
  2. 1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

    They have a housing crisis in LA too.  Housing is cheap in Fresno.  Middle class folks in the bay area and LA can go buy a home there now.  Why aren't they?  The median home price in Fresno is over 100k less than the median home price in Houston.  The housing "crisis" in Fresno and similarly located towns is quite the opposite as mortgages remain underwater from the housing crash.  And again, LA and SF are mature cities without greenfield and surrounded by natural barriers.

    And any housing development that artificially suppresses cost and rations housing so that it can be "affordable" is welfare.  It doesn't matter whether they limit access via maximum income or lottery, its welfare.  The middle class is getting priced out because wealthier people are willing to pay more.  This is the market at work.  If you want more welfare, fine, but understand that what you're calling for is more welfare and regulation, not less.  If 8 million people want to live in SF, and there is only room for 800,000, the richest 800,000 are going to be taking the housing units if you let the market do its work.

    Yes, multiple times now you've said CA's welfare programs are the problem.  Remember you said this,

    What do you think that means?  It means other states don't fucking care enough so their poor people are moving to CA.

    OK matters because CA doesn't exist in a vacuum, but you can use pretty much any red state as a fill-in for OK.  They don't care so their residents move to CA to be "given" something.

    If you empty the prisons, people will leave CA and housing prices will plummet.  I'm not advocating for emptying prisons though. I simply understand that demand is the primary factor driving up cost, not supply.  You have no plan but implementing more welfare.

    Its relevant for the same reason OK is.  CA doesn't control its borders with US states.  It has the same issues with housing costs as CA cities and receives homeless residents of other municipalities and states because it treats the homeless favorably.

    And yes, TX is next in line to be CA because it is experiencing rapid urban growth.  Rising housing costs is the price of success.  In the world, can you identify a single city that is as "affordable" as the countryside? 

    And welcome to the board, sheeeit.  Nobody else is quite as disingenuous as you. 

    Population, desirability, natural barriers, California’s success, it’s all the same to me as I’ve already stated. Excuses are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. The one theme that I keep encountering is that it’s not California’s fault. No, it’s a bunch of finger pointing, platitudes, and zero accountability for the disastrous policies in place. Misconstruing anything that I’ve laid out as more welfare or artificial is so ridiculous, it’s tough to muster a reply. I’ve laid out my plans and reasoning that I believe will work, which is more than most on this board, who only want to explain why it can’t be done. But I think it’s great that you’re fighting the good fight and continuing the idea that the current situation was simply unavoidable. But this dance grows tiresome and is starting to become redundant at this point. So, in that vein, it will be interesting to see what happens to California as a case study, because they’re going to continue the current status quo that has worked so well for them. 

    Also, what is sheeeit? 

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 2
  3. 28 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Where are you going to put this affordable housing in SF if you aren't going to tear down market rate housing? Are you going to tear down industrial or commercial use buildings instead?  Even if you do so, how are you going to artificially depress the land value so that you can sell or rent units at less than market rate without it being "welfare"?  And again, even if you, instead, magically find non-existent greenfield for your projects, they will be open to residents of other US states who will move to CA to live in them because their home states don't offer jack shit.  And its pretty laughable that while you attempt to demonize welfare, your affordable housing plan is welfare on steroids.  

     

    "You can’t possibly be concerned the doors to California will be any more open than they already are. The billions spent in cash assistance payments, vendor payments, and various welfare programs have made sure the message is heard loud and clear throughout the country. 1 out of every 3 Americans on welfare reside in California, I’m fairly positive the word is out. But sure, Californian’s are spending 30% of their income on housing, 40% higher for energy, and getting priced out of their homes simply because their state is so successful."


    Again, they spend 30% of their income because they and many other people want to live where they're living.  The state is successful.  They can also go live in Fresno in CA if they want to and spend less, but have just about the same opportunity for income as they would have in flyover country.  People want to live near job centers and that's why it costs more to live near job centers.  And again, you keep saying shit like the "word is out" on CA and then you say you're going to fix it by building welfare housing for all-comers.  How are you going to keep the "word from coming out" when you do that?  The problem for CA isn't illegal immigrants who are ineligible for CA welfare programs.  Its internal migration from other states who are eligible for all benefits.  And CA wants that wall to keep other Americans out if the rest of America isn't going to start giving a shit about their own residents.

    "My point on Oklahoma was, of course, that comparing states is often fruitless. I’m not sure why you keep throwing Oklahoma out as an example when we’re discussing California. It’s a strange misdirection tactic to be sure. "

    Its fruitless because nobody wants to live in OK because there is no opportunity and more poverty, and OK is disinterested in doing anything about either one.

    "I’m glad that you didn’t reiterate how great the average Latino family is doing, as all of the data suggests otherwise. That was almost as insane and suggesting that only crime will make market rate housing affordable. As for the personal attacks on my personal success, assume what you will. I would spend less time focusing on me and more on the homeless man about to take a dump on your front lawn. "

    They make it work and they do so in CA because thats where they have more opportunity.  They could go be poor in OK or Iowa.  They don't because their kids won't have a chance to be anything in OK or Iowa.  And yes, only an increase in crime will change the market rate for housing in markets that are completely developed.  Its impossible to increase supply by a big enough amount to make a difference, so you have to tackle demand.  High crime does that.

    My lawn is just fine.  I'm in NYC which guarantees shelter rooms to homeless, and it gets its own share of busing from careless communities as well.  Is it NYC's fault that homeless come here for shelter or is it your town's fault for kicking its residents to more caring locales?  Incidentally, NYC has added 500,000 people since the 2010 census.  Do you really believe that those 500,000 are the only ones who want to move to NYC, or do you understand that they are the ones willing to pay the highest price to live in available units?  Are you aware that NYC had and has 0 greenfield development opportunities and has been developing on contaminated brownfield sites which require lengthy and expensive environmental cleanup?  The same issue arises in SF and you think it should be expedited?  Its fucking easy in Texas because you're just making a subdivision in a cow pasture, and not cleaning up a radium dump first.  Personally, like you, I think something needs to be done to keep middle class and lower class people present in mature cities.  I just understand that the only way to do that without being a magnet is to restrict it only to those who were already present, but priced out.

     

    Incidentally, the same issues will crop up in Texas cities eventually.  Even though there is open land 100 miles from Houston, at some point the distance to the core is going to be too great, and you are already seeing the core of cities becoming too expensive for lower and middle classes.

     

     

    A little strange you’re restricting the entirety of California’s housing crisis to SF, I must admit. You do realize that there are housing developments that aren’t welfare, correct? I’m not advocating for any type of welfare program. Lowering the taxes, closing the border, and deregulation will help across the board, especially the middle class, who are slowly disappearing. The point is to stop them from getting priced out of their current home and not end up on the already crowded streets. This problem has been building for years and they just stared at the tsunami as it washed up on their shores.

    Silly me, I forget that California is the only state that cares for its residents. These big, bad other states need to fix the problem for them. You’re heart is bleeding so badly, you may need to go see your cardiologist. 

    You still don’t understand what I was explaining about your random insertion of Oklahoma, but I’ll find a way to move on. 

    So now the Latino’s are poor? My my, you sure have changed your tune on that point. I’ll tell you what, I’ll stick to my plan and you go empty all the prisons in California into these crowded cities and we’ll see how well your theory turns out. 

    NYC huh? Mandatory insertion of an irrelevant state that has nothing to do with California. I mean, what state is next? Oh that’s right, Texas. First Texas doesn’t care about its citizens and now it’s next in line to be like California. It’s getting hard to follow your meandering psychobabble. 

    • Like 1
  4. 57 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Ahh, the old "affordable housing a priority" mantra. For a guy that hates Newsome, you sure sound like him.  So when you start tearing down market rate housing and replacing it with affordable housing, what do you think that will do to the prices of remaining (and dwindling due to your policy) market rate housing?  I will give you a hint. It goes up further. Furthermore, you've also opened the doors for the rest of the country to come camp out in your streets and enter the lottery for your affordable housing projects. Remember, you claim to not be "leave or die," but Texas is. So even more people are going to show up to try to occupy your affordable housing. 

     

    There's really only one way to make market rate housing affordable in mature fully built cities. Increase crime. Nobody is going to do that on purpose though.  The problem is that CA isn't in a "mire of its own creation."  Its actually a victim of its own success. Some people are going to get churned by the market. Sounds like you're one of them. I know you'd like to blame taxes and welfare for the fact that a 1000 sf 60 year old run-down home in a historically lower middle class area is going for a million dollars, but its actually going for a million dollars because someone is offering a million dollars for it. 

     

    But hey, if you think OK and CA are equivalent in offering you opportunity then move to OK.  Lol that you think the poverty problem is worse in CA. Sorry you got priced out of CA.  Maybe try Fresno. Its affordable still. 

     

    I do agree on one thing. With our freedom of movement, states can't have good welfare policies while states who hate their own poor citizens like OK exist. Your affordable housing plan needs to be available to long time CA residents only which is nearly impossible with our constitution. CA needs states like OK to take care of their own. Or we need a national plan. 

    There’s a key difference between Newsom and myself, I believe what I say. I’m not sure where I implied tearing down market rate housing. This concept is fairly simple, but for some it remains just outside of their grasp. The material, labor, and government fees are higher in California than anywhere else in the country and regulations tie up these development programs for years, adding even more to the cost. In Texas, for example, it can take around a year and a half from concept to permit, whereas the process is around five years in California. That is, if you’re lucky enough to not get hit with the thousands of frivolous environmental lawsuits that are aimed to halt building developments. Speeding up housing developments surely wouldn’t ease the problem would it? But, you say, we simply don’t have the room. Well, then you would think that since land is at such a premium, that Californian’s would be trying their damdest to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Of course they’re not, and they’re not going to. That would be flat out too mean and would lessen their pool of victims to sink their welfare claws into, also diminishing their voter pool. So the population will keep rising and the housing will still be slow due to the unreasonable land use restrictions. Thus, the mire, and yes it is a mire, will only deepen. 

    You can’t possibly be concerned the doors to California will be any more open than they already are. The billions spent in cash assistance payments, vendor payments, and various welfare programs have made sure the message is heard loud and clear throughout the country. 1 out of every 3 Americans on welfare reside in California, I’m fairly positive the word is out. But sure, Californian’s are spending 30% of their income on housing, 40% higher for energy, and getting priced out of their homes simply because their state is so successful. 

    My point on Oklahoma was, of course, that comparing states is often fruitless. I’m not sure why you keep throwing Oklahoma out as an example when we’re discussing California. It’s a strange misdirection tactic to be sure. 

    I’m glad that you didn’t reiterate how great the average Latino family is doing, as all of the data suggests otherwise. That was almost as insane and suggesting that only crime will make market rate housing affordable. As for the personal attacks on my personal success, assume what you will. I would spend less time focusing on me and more on the homeless man about to take a dump on your front lawn. 

    • Like 2
  5. 8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Well, there are natural boundaries to CA cities, they do have perfect weather, and y'all do bus your homeless there. All of those things are true. Also true is that far more people want to live there than they have space for. Hell, nearly half of Austin is in Austin because they want to live in CA but can't afford it. They still "want" to live in CA, and that latent demand also keeps the housing prices up because everyone has an "I'd live in LA for that price" price.

    And you believe those same homeless folks in CA would be housed, fed, and working in Texas?  Right.  Poverty is everywhere. Go check out the meth addled state just across your border.  The reason that poor people take the chance at going to a magnetic city like SF is that there is a "chance" to do something with themselves there.  

    Take a look at the social ladder in your town. It ain't nearly as climbable. You focus on homeless people, the majority of which have a mental or substance problem. Instead, look at how immigrant latinos make it work in CA.  And they do make it work. The real problem for CA when it comes to the homeless is that they pretend to care. When you say youre going to take care of the homeless, more will come, and that draws in those who y'all don't already bus.   NYC has the same problem since they guarantee shelter beds. Meanwhile, your town pretty much tells them they can leave or die.  So they leave or die. Your solution to export poverty elsewhere isn't a better one. The actual solution for homelessness is to make it the responsibility of the state or municipality where the person had his last official residence or employment.  

    Half of Austin wants to live in California? I’d like to see that poll, would be interesting. Ah, the poverty is everywhere platitude. One of the more unattractive human characteristics. Yes, we’re drowning in poverty, but look over there and stop focusing on us. I could bore you with the fact that poverty is based on a national standard and doesn’t account for the differences in living costs. Taxes, housing, and healthcare are wildly more expensive in California than Oklahoma, often rendering comparisons futile. But that’s a boring conversation, let’s get to the fun stuff. 

    The reason homeless are flocking to California isn’t because they believe they’ll do something, it’s because they believe they’ll be given something. That’s the point of a welfare state. Another good hearted policy that’s gone horribly wrong. It’s mainly a giant safety net where addicts can shirk treatment and the mentally ill can ditch their medication, with no fear of being held accountable. It’s marketed as a utopia and it doesn’t take long for the disillusioned to realize its an inescapable dystopia.

    I’m delighted you bring up Latinos, as the income inequality in California rivals that of Mexico. Actually, some studies say it’s worse, but that’s another discussion. You stated that population growth can not be sustained, it surely can’t have anything to do with California’s immigration policies right? They estimate that a quarter of California is made up of immigrants and they lost count of illegal aliens around 2.4 million at last check. Now, immigration is not inherently a bad thing, quite the opposite, but the policies in place regarding the border will continue to worsen conditions for the individuals that followed the law. As you know I’m sure, 55% of immigrant families receive a means tested benefits from the state, compared to 30% of the native population. Also, you know those piles of materials that you see scattered on the roadways and backstreets? That’s a tactic many blue collared immigrants in the construction business have adopted, simply to make ends meet. The insane climate regulations make disposing of it properly something they can ill afford. But, I suppose, that’s thriving in your eyes.

    As to your last point, you pretend it’s some sort of revelation that politicians in that state are fraudulent. That was, if you remember, my main contention concerning the slimy Gavin Newsom. He doesn’t give the slightest shit for the homeless population, but yet he makes it part of his platform. He’s the worst of the worst and it deeply troubled me that people are willing to vote him into presidency. My idea for the homeless was not to ship them elsewhere or let them die. It was simply to change the current policies of the welfare state, lowering the tax rate, easing the burden of The California Environmental Quality Act, gain control of the border, and make affordable housing a priority. Instead, the morons are going to sink billions into a useless light rail. They don’t want solutions, they want Californians to keep paying through the nose and to garner as many voters as possible. In the meantime, California will continue to sink into the mire of its own creation. 

    • Like 4
    • Haha 1
  6. 14 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Actually, demand is pretty much the sole reason housing prices are so high in CA.  A house is only worth what someone will pay for it. And people in CA are paying those prices so a seller isn't going to reject a wealthier buyer and take your lower middle class offer. The big difference between CA cities and Houston or Dallas is that CA cities are hemmed in by natural obstructions and all land inside those natural boundaries is already developed. SF, in particular, is tiny. A few million people want to live in it specifically. Less than a million can.  Fewer people want to live in a rural east Texas mansion, so you can buy one for less than a SF 1 bdrm walkup. 

    It’s not the sole reason, but I’ve already stated as such. You can blame land barriers, weather, busing, it’s all the same excuse to me. Until they realize that extreme taxation and unreasonable regulations will ensure that much of the population never rises the social ladder, their problems with poverty will continue to grow. 

  7. 7 hours ago, TheFlyingBoat said:

    Part of that is because it's one of the few states where you can survive living outside basically year round (doubt too many homeless people survive a Minnesota winter for too long), another part is that other states give their homeless people bus tickets to California as their solution to homelessness, and another part of it is that homeless people generally move to cities and California is the biggest state with the biggest cities. Some of it does have to do with too onerous of restrictions on building developments, but even building a shit ton of skyscrapers for SROs wouldn't bring housing prices down to an affordable level in San Francisco. There are just too many high paying jobs there which will guarantee people get priced out and you can only get developers to agree to so much rent control in exchange for rights to build. Having the problems with too many homeless people isn't necessarily and indictment of poor policy and in the case of Newsom it probably isn't as I think he is in favor of loosening SF's zoning restrictions and encouraging more building.

     

    FWIW, while you go after California, they're clearly doing something right as they have 5 public universities (4 if you choose not to count UCSF as they're purely a graduate medical institution) that outperform us in research according to the ARWU (decent enough ranking) and 6 that outperform in undergraduate education (US News, it's shit, but it's the one everyone uses so eh). It has a per capita GDP 10% higher than ours. The top graduates from their high schools generally beat and outnumber ours if you look at performance in national competitions and representation in science contests like ISEF and STS and in crude metrics like PSAT cutoff for National Merit (an OK-ish estimator of seeing how well educated the top of the state is). Let's not start throwing stones from glass houses. If you think no Democrat from CA should be president, no Republican from TX ever should either because they failed to invest in the future of Texas and as a result we've been falling behind. We should be #1 in everything. This is Texas goddamnit.

    I’m not going to belabor the point about there being no correlation between population size and homelessness. Also, busing homeless has been going on since the seventies, not only to California mind you. Some of the issue is from too onerous of restrictions? You mean the part where California pays, on average, 40% more for energy than the rest of the country or that it’s the highest tax burdened state? I’m sure correcting that wouldn’t help the pricing of affordable housing, no it’s just that California is too damn successful for its own good. It’s increasingly becoming a state where only the elite will prosper and the poor to middle class will pay through the nose for housing, energy, and services. They concede that nearly 20% of families live below the poverty line and another 20% barely live above it. The policies in that state has been disastrous for the average Californian. Don’t get me started on the state of infrastructure and the medieval diseases making a comeback. But hey, they want to sink billions into a new, cool light rail! 

    Half of my family lives in California and I spent many summers there, so it saddens me that it’s become what it has. I only mention that because I want to stress that I have a vested interest in the state. I love Texas because it’s my home, but of course we have issues. Let’s be honest though, they are nowhere near the level of California. Walk down the streets of greater Los Angeles and you’ll encounter destitution you can’t even imagine. That’s absolutely an indictment of policy. I believe eduction is very important, so I’ll give them a slap on the back for their graduation success and high gdp. But in the meantime, I’d like to take my children to Disneyland without having to go explain why a man is asleep on a park bench with a needle hanging out of his arm. 

    My original point was that Newsom has been saying the issue of homelessness is absolutely solvable since, I believe, 2014. So where are the results? Hint: it’s become exponentially worse. If you want to run this charlatan, the Democrats will get slaughtered. 

  8. 9 minutes ago, SmokeyBear1861 said:

    I thought this topic both sides would agree on, I was wrong.

    Isreal has a right to exist, they are being attacked, and defending themselves.

    Well, I applaud your effort. I’m sure posters like Fozzz would remain cool, calm, and collected with Hamas knocking at their door. 

    Whether it’s indiscriminately firing rockets at children, hiding weapons at UN facilities, using civilians as human shields, or treating their women like 2nd class citizens, the fact that anyone can engender sympathy for them is wildly disturbing. 

     

    • Like 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Newy25 said:

    Why not because it was a decent show and a lot of people just wanted to tune in to see it again? Why does everything have to be a political statement? 

    Phew, I thought I was the only one. The day I sit down to watch a TV show and cheer for the red or blue team, is the day I put the barrel in my mouth. Cheers to you my friend.

  10. 57 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    Jean Paul Sartre on anti-Semites - apt today for the political right in America

     

    There was a time, not so long ago, that being called an anti-Semite actually carried some weight. Before you water down the word even further, I would scrape together $1.50 and head to your local library to learn what it truly means. As I’m sure the tears you’ve cried reading about evil America’s atrocities have rendered your own history books unreadable. 

    Also, Thorazine is fairly effective in treating delusions and scattered thoughts in general. Your curent state is no way to navigate life, and hell, you might even become employable. 

     

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  11. 37 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    California has 40 million people and is the most populous state in the US.  They also have much better weather (at least Southern Cal) than the other large-population states.

    I would be very surprised if California only had 1-2 cities with the highest homelessness.  

    Yes, the homeless population rose 14% last year because of the beautiful weather. 

    • Like 1
  12. 7 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

    Those same cities are also all in the top 20 in population in the US. Large population centers attract a lot of homeless people? Shocking.

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Unfortunately, you just unwittingly made my point for me. Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Columbus, FT Worth, Charlotte, Detroit, Memphis, and El Paso all crack the top 20 most populated cities and strangely don’t make the top homeless list. So, of the six that did, four reside in California. 

    Remember the Hepatitis A outbreak that had health officials reeling? That’s just a taste of what’s to come from these despicable tent cities, where people sleep on top of human waste. It’s shocking that people defend this inhumane treatment of people, many of which are mentally ill. 

    • Like 1
  13. 16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

    Not that I expect an SF mayor to have a shot at the presidency, but the "California is a disaster" nonsense is always laughable. Its the biggest economic engine we have. Any desirable place is going to struggle with housing costs and homelessness. 

    I’m sorry, but this is patently untrue. With even a modicum of research you would find that out of the ten cities with the highest homelessness, four of them are located in California. If that’s not indicative of poor leadership, I don’t know what is.

    So shrugging your shoulders and saying that everyone struggles to the extent that California does is disingenuous on your part. Back to my original point; anyone that things that fraud Newsome should be anywhere near the presidency needs a lobotomy immediately.

  14. 13 hours ago, softlynow said:

    Landrieu

    Gavin Newsome, assuming he wins his gubernatorial bid this year.

    Chris Murphy

     

    Gavin Newsome? The politician that keeps spouting that he’s going to fix homelessness and has failed horribly? I’m not sure what’s more appealing in California; the homeless tent cities with human feces baking in the sun, the bankruptcy, the thousands of meaningless regulations, or the hundreds of shopping carts you pass as you drive on pothole filled roads.

    California is an absolute disaster and advocating that any politician from that state should lead our country is utterly insane. 

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  15. 11 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

    You missed the point. 

    "The double standard is clear: When Democrats work on behalf of a special interest that aborts millions of children, they are doing so from a place of conscience and ideological purity. When Republicans argue in favor of Second Amendment rights, it is because they have been bought off by a disfavored lobbying group looking to profit from carnage."

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/26/if-nra-owns-republicans-planned-parenthood-owns-democrats-christian-schneider-column/372679002/

    "In fact, since 2012, Planned Parenthood alone has donated virtually the same amount ($2.6 million) to individual candidates as the NRA ($2.7 million)."

    To be fair though "The NRA has, however, spent more in third-party independent ads that either criticize Democrats or support Republicans." 

    But to also be fair, the NRA is private and doesnt receive government funding. Is there anything more corrupt than Planned Parenthood getting money from the government and then spending it on political candidates?

    Also of note from the article: "57% of respondents said mass shootings in America are more a reflection of problems with identifying and treating people with mental health problems, while only 28% blamed inadequate gun control laws."

    Oh, come on. Are you telling me that people are more concerned with the individual pulling the trigger and not personifying inanimate objects? Get that drivel out of here. You’re starting to infringe on my utopian ideals man. 

     

  16. I say we ban guns, I mean the government was so successful with drug war and prohibition. So what if a thriving black market develops? That’s going to be a whole lot of fun for people like myself, you know, that follow the law. 

    Also, I suggest we continue to prescribe these psychotropic drugs to developing brains. I’m sure the lack of empathy and dissociative characteristics that develop are merely temporary symptoms that will be phased out by the evolutionary process. Let’s just give it a couple hundred years fellas. 

    • Like 1
  17. Why are they trying so hard to convince us that Maggie is some sort of stoic leader? It feels like she self glossed herself as The Widow, which is really lame. 

    Also, isn’t she pregnant? The last person in line to lead my damn group would be a hormonal pregnant woman. 

    • Like 1
  18. 11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

     

    Have you noticed that one side gets marchers by the millions and the other side gets a handful of fat 'beetus patients? How do you think it would actually turn out for you Internet Keyboard Warriors?

    The center-right/center-left would cheer the boys in blue and military as they systematically dismantle the 'beetus militias causing trouble and your revolution would be a hilarious and sad footnote. Or do you think the police and military are going to wholesale slaughter a bunch of unarmed white protesters?

    What percentage of you Internet tough guys would actually go to war? 1%? 0.5%? You fucking bitches can't even show up to counter-protest a bunch of moms and kids.

    I wonder how long it will take them to figure out pussyhats make for terrible helmets. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...