Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#106
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.Cum isn't stored in the balls!!! 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
People seam to like it when their need to eat doesn't enrich corporations.
But, maybe that's just what they they think in New York.
In a state like Texas, those crazy socialists don't stand a chance, right?
only registered users can see external links
And who is covering the missing 30% of retail? the taxpayers? Who pays taxes? every one.
And did you read the story a week ago about how they were going to require id before you could shop there to be sure you were a new yorker? and boy did they catch hell about that 1. Don't want voter id but gota show id to buy grocerys.
what I am curious to see is when people rob these city owned stores how the law reacts. do they arrest the thief or reward them somehow?
They only require some $70 million in city funding for startup costs. Afterwards, the costs to the public will be much lower. The plan is not simply "sell groceries 30% cheaper and absorb the loss." The plan is to reduce operating costs in several ways so that the required subsidy is smaller than it otherwise would be. The methods include:
• No profit requirement. A city-owned store would not need to generate returns for private owners or shareholders.
• Reduced real estate costs. The city could use publicly owned buildings or subsidize rent, which is one of the largest expenses for grocery stores in New York.
• Bulk purchasing. Buying large quantities directly from suppliers could reduce wholesale costs, although the extent depends on the scale of the store network.
• Simpler operations. Focusing on staple foods and carrying fewer products can lower inventory, labor, and spoilage costs.
• Public financing. The city can borrow at relatively low interest rates for capital investments.
If that doesn't operate at cost, they will indeed get that money from the rich,
to feed the people who need it.
If you rob from the government, what do they do to you, thank you?
Only wealthy people like Trump and Elon are allowed to steal from the government.
The system hasn't worked well anywhere else and no 1 with good sense can see it working here.
You know momsdummie the mayor released a million landlords names and address's so that they could be harassed don't you? how the hell is that even legal?
You're indoctrinated by the wealthy with deeply un-American ideas.
You probably have The Constitution printed on your boxers,
but you have no idea what these words mean.
The Declaration of Independence is pretty clear about it:
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
If you want to interpret it to fit your view, maybe you should read what the founding fathers intended with it.
James Madison (1751–1836) was one of the principal architects of the United States Constitution and later became the fourth President of the United States. In 1787–1788, while the American states were debating whether to adopt the new Constitution, Madison wrote a series of essays known as The Federalist Papers under the pseudonym “Publius.” In Federalist No. 51, published in 1788, he explained the principles he believed were necessary to preserve a free republic. The essay remains important because it describes a central vision of the American system: freedom requires that power must never become concentrated and unchecked.
Madison began from a realistic view of human nature. He argued that people who hold power will naturally have interests of their own, and therefore a free society cannot depend on the virtue of those in authority. His famous statement, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary,” expresses the idea that every form of power needs limits. The purpose of constitutional design was therefore not simply to create government, but to create a system in which power would restrain itself.
Madison also recognized that society would always contain different interests, groups, and classes of citizens. People would differ in wealth, beliefs, occupations, and goals, creating competing forces within society. He did not believe these differences could or should be eliminated. Instead, he argued that a healthy republic must prevent any one group from becoming powerful enough to dominate others. As he wrote, “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers; but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
The broader principle behind Madison’s vision is that liberty is threatened whenever power becomes concentrated without effective checks. The founders were concerned not only with preventing government tyranny, but with ensuring that no faction, class, or institution could gain enough influence to override the rights and independence of ordinary citizens. This principle remains central to debates about how a republic should balance freedom, power, and the protection of its people.
Search instead for tax payer funded discount grocery stores,how well do they work
AI Overview
Taxpayer-funded discount grocery stores lower prices for shoppers, but they shift the true cost to the public and face severe operational challenges. They rely on government subsidies rather than traditional profit models to function.
How the Model Works
Subsidies and Savings: Proponents argue that by exempting stores from rent and property taxes or using direct public funds, municipal stores can slash prices on core staples like produce, meat, and milk by roughly 30%.
Public-Private Partnerships: Plans like New York City's proposed pilot program rely on the city owning the location while private or nonprofit operators handle day-to-day sourcing and fulfillment using public "affordability payments" to cover losses.
Historical Precedents: Small-scale municipal or government-operated grocery experiments—such as those attempted in rural or struggling towns like Baldwin, Florida, and Caney City, Texas—frequently struggled to stay out of the red and ultimately closed or were sold back to private owners due to mounting debt.
Key Criticisms and Risks
Indirect Tax Burdens: Critics and economists point out that the discounts are an illusion; shoppers save at the register, but taxpayers fund the deficits, overhead, and initial startup costs through public funds.
Unfair Competition: Privately owned local bodegas and independent supermarkets operate on razor-thin margins (1% to 2%). Critics argue that government-backed stores enjoying free rent and subsidies can artificially undercut private businesses, potentially forcing neighborhood competitors out of the market.
Inefficiency and Scale: Government-run or heavily subsidized models often struggle to match the massive supply-chain efficiencies, bulk-buying power, and logistics management of major commercial supermarket chain
--------------------------------------- added after 2 hours
only registered users can see external links
Would be the first thing that Mamdani will fail on,
because he is checking off every single one of his promises.
He was completely open about everything, and now he is DOING IT ALL!
That's DEMOCRACY, so I see why you lot don't like it.
Birds of a feather flock together, of course, which are, in this case, vultures feeding off the starved corpses of millions. That is what Reds do, whenever they come to power.
Communists let people starve to maintain their power.
Hitler was a fascist, like Trump. Trump has actually cited "Mein Kampf".
And his biggest campaign funder was "Sieg heiling" on stage.
The regimes that called themselves 'communist' were nothing but.
They were authoritarian state-capitalist systems.
Your regime is starving people, and Mamdani is feeding the people.
No Americans would EVER vote for a socialist, if your side would ever do
ANYTHING good for them. You fucked up! That's why you're losing to socialists.
The dreck you post in your long-winded theses is pure fascist pap, through and through. Donald Trump is no more a fascist than is Donald Duck.
I ask Grok, Is Trump fascist,
Clearly NO,
"No. Donald Trump is not a fascist by any rigorous historical or definitional standard of the term.
What fascism actually means
Fascism is a specific 20th-century ideology, not a generic insult for “right-wing person I dislike” or “authoritarian-leaning populist.” Core features, drawn from Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, and scholarly definitions (e.g., Paxton, Griffin, Payne):
Single-party dictatorship that abolishes competitive elections and independent institutions.
Explicit rejection of liberal democracy, individual rights, and parliamentary government in favor of the leader and the state as the highest values.
Corporatist economic control in which the state directs private enterprise toward national power goals, not free markets.
Cult of violence, militarism, and often racial hierarchy as organizing principles.
Total mobilization of society under a revolutionary nationalist ideology that seeks to remake the nation through continuous struggle.
Trump does not meet these criteria.
Trump’s record vs. the definition
He won two elections under the existing U.S. constitutional system, left office after losing in 2020 (despite disputing the result and the January 6 riot), and is again running within the same system. Fascists do not leave power voluntarily or accept the possibility of electoral defeat.
He has not created a one-party state, banned opposition parties, or abolished Congress, independent courts, or free press. U.S. institutions constrained him throughout his first term; he operated inside them.
His economic approach has been broadly pro-business, deregulatory, and tax-cutting—closer to conventional American conservatism or mercantilist nationalism than to fascist corporatism.
Rhetoric can be bombastic, nationalist, and personalistic. Criticisms of media, “deep state,” and political opponents are often intemperate. That is not the same as systematically dismantling democratic institutions or installing a totalitarian party-state.
January 6 was a violent riot and an attempt to pressure the certification process. It was ugly and anti-democratic. It was not a fascist coup with coordinated paramilitaries seizing state power; the military and most institutions held.
Calling every strong nationalist, protectionist, or anti-establishment politician “fascist” empties the word of meaning. The same inflation has been applied to many figures across the spectrum when convenient.
Why the label is still widely used
Opponents deploy it as a moral intensifier: it signals that Trump is uniquely dangerous and beyond normal political disagreement. Some point to his admiration for “strong” leaders, immigration hard line, or personality cult among supporters. Those are real features of his politics; they do not make him a fascist. Supporters counter that the charge is primarily a tool to delegitimize a disruptive populist who challenges elite consensus on trade, immigration, and cultural issues.
If the question is whether Trump is authoritarian-leaning, norm-breaking, or polarizing, reasonable people can debate degrees. If the question is whether he is a fascist in the historical sense, the answer is no. Using the term loosely makes it harder to identify actual fascism when it appears.
Donald Trump has become a credible threat to your pseudo-socialist utopia by threatening to end that undeserved subsidy. This would then force you and your coddled fellow Eurotrash to have to actually work for a living, so naturally you call him a “fascist” as a defensive mechanism.
Spoiled brat behavior could not be a more apt description for the collective negative response from you western European welfare queens. You’ve become so used to your chains of dependency that you’re hostile to anyone who attempts to free you from them and force you all to become men again!
Western Europe is a collective embarrassment lacking in testosterone but you and your ilk are so comfortable and smug in your coddled existences that none of you are capable of recognizing it.
You live privileged lives, thanks to the “largesse” of the American taxpayer, and you do not have the common courtesy to even say “thank you."
Hope her dumbass husband that whined about Trump and his family goes with her. IF canada will even take him.
of course they took all of our draft dodgers so they must not be very picky.
only registered users can see external links
Sometimes they do their job, most times they are being racist fucks.
Probably they are not even ALL racist fucks. It's a job that pays well,
so there are likely people doing it who are decent people.
A Canadian, who STILL wants to be in the US, and then attacks another girl for wearing a 'USA 250 anniversary' shirt? I don't buy that for a second.
What Trump did to your USA 250 anniversary is definitely not patriotic.
Here are some ways that made it a big DISGRACE:
1. A milestone that should have united Americans instead became another battlefield in the country’s political war, deepening division rather than celebrating a shared identity.
2. Trump used the anniversary as a platform to promote his own political identity, turning a national commemoration into an extension of his personal brand and presidency.
3. Trump’s anniversary operation redirected money, sponsorship opportunities, and access toward his allies and political network, turning a national celebration into a vehicle for political influence and personal benefit.
4. The celebration’s funding structure drew criticism over the use of public resources, private donations, and sponsorships, with concerns that a national commemoration was being used to benefit politically connected interests.
5. The Trump-backed “Freedom 250” effort displaced the bipartisan America250 process and transformed a national commemoration into a Trump-aligned political production.
6. By tying a national anniversary celebration so closely to his own political identity, Trump alienated artists and participants who did not want their work used to legitimize a partisan event.
7. A celebration intended to showcase American achievement was marred by rushed planning, organizational failures, and an execution that fell far below the standard expected for a 250th anniversary event.
8. Attendees faced basic comfort and planning failures, including inadequate shade, seating, food access, and protection from extreme heat.
9. Operational breakdowns — including technical failures, power problems, and food-storage issues — turned a major national event into a public embarrassment.
10. Extreme weather exposed inadequate safety planning, with failures in preparing for dangerous heat, shelter needs, and crowd management.
11. The anniversary’s imagery, projects, and presentation placed Trump’s persona and legacy at the center of a national commemoration, overshadowing the broader history and achievements of the United States.
12. Instead of leaving Americans with pride in a historic milestone, the celebration became associated by many with division, self-promotion, waste, chaos, and a missed opportunity for genuine national reflection.
As a Dutchman who believes deeply in democracy, impartial justice, and accountable government, this disgrace was a painful reminder that even an occasion of such historic importance was not spared from being turned into a vehicle for division and personal ambition. A 250th anniversary should have been a moment to reflect on the long struggle to build and preserve a democratic society: the belief that no person is above the law,
that justice should not depend on power or privilege, and that government must ultimately answer to its citizens. Seeing such a historic occasion become associated with division, personal glorification, and dysfunction was deeply painful.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Complaining about not getting any free stuff!
"Coming to Europe is about taking -- or more appropriately, plundering.
To believe that masses of Muslims are coming to Europe because they genuinely need help or plan to assimilate, living peacefully among a diversity of cultures and other peoples, is to be breathtakingly ignorant of history.
Will you say the same about Kyle Rittenhouse? He was HOLDING his gun.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects peaceful speech, assembly, and criticism of the government, including police and federal agents.
Alex Pretti was only talking to them. It was the ICE agents who turned violent.
• Being armed is not, by itself, grounds for being shot.
In many U.S. states, carrying a firearm is legal under state law (subject to restrictions). The use of deadly force by law enforcement is judged by whether the person posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, not simply by whether they possessed a firearm.
• Obstructing law enforcement does not authorize summary execution.
Even if someone commits crimes such as trespassing, resisting, or obstructing officers, the legal remedy is arrest and prosecution. Deadly force is not a lawful punishment for those offenses.
• "Brandishing" has a specific legal meaning.
Simply having a firearm visible is different from threatening someone with it. Whether a person "brandished" a weapon is a factual question that depends on the evidence, including video, witness testimony, and forensic evidence.
• The governing legal standard is objective reasonableness.
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Connor, an officer's use of force is judged based on whether it was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, considering what the officer reasonably perceived at the time.
• Deadly force has additional constitutional limits.
In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court held that deadly force generally cannot be used against a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.
Better protect your rights, or the next one who gets shot by police is you.
Preventing a robot from helping teach.
Could save 1000's in salary and other exspenses,
only registered users can see external links
The robot costs $57,000 and it cannot do anything more than
a tablet with a $20–$30/month ChatGPT voice subscription.
Who is going to pay for your robot, when Trump is gutting education funding?
The robot being used here is crude,and perhaps it should be more inter active,but for whatever reason,people are to concerned with the privacy of kids,which there should be none until they are 18 because they are under the care of parents and guardians. Gutting funding,or just cutting waste?
Why not implement tech in our schools? Why have schools when kids could learn at home with robotic tech?It was supposedly ok during covid? why not all the time, It would be safe if their MOTHERS were there at home to care for them as they should be instead of out working to pay for child care?thus eliminating their primary job of caring for the offspring?
Exactly because that robot is still crude, it isn't worth using the money for that. Have you not heard how many teachers are buying supplies from their own money, because funding is getting cut too short?
What is waste? This is the best definition that I can find: Waste is public spending that consumes resources without reasonably advancing the legally authorized objective of the expenditure, or that achieves that objective at substantially greater cost than a practical alternative.
It's waste, if you spend $57,000 on something that can be achieved fully with $300
and a $30/month subscription. If something added has a 10% advantage, you don't pay 19,000% more for it.
If the robot is used to teach programming of robotics software, for kids who are at that level, then it's a whole other thing. That can be worth every dollar.
Mothers are forced to work, because the cost of living crisis makes it impossible to live on just one income. I don't think that it's only the woman's job to care for children. Women should be able to have careers too, so they are not dependent on men.
Men are just as important to the development of children as women, so both the parenting and the career should be shared among them.
I get criticized by your political side for using AI to find some data. They argue that it's completely unreliable. And now you telling me that it's a good idea to hand over the education of children to an AI teacher, to save some money. I didn't expect that.
BUT Humans are so biased, try to push their personal ideals onto the kids and etc that it has become a problem. Not to mention the teachers constantly demanding more money as if the pool of funds their salary's come from are bottomless.
We have some of the dumbest kids in the world graduating from our schools. It's not all the kids fault ,nor the parents.it is the schools fault for the most part not taking time to teach. Ai could easily detect a kid having issues, instantly find a solution to the problem. Ai could use what is distracting the kid to the good. Perhaps the kid is interested in nature, use counting monkeys and trees as a learning tool for the 1'st grader age to help them learn math? Can a teacher do that? for each kid?
Your whole country is politicized and biased. It's only logical that teachers are included in that trend. It has been going on in relation to religion for a long time. We have Christian teachers too, but they have never outright refused to teach evolution.
About 28% consistently taught evolution as the scientific consensus.
About 13% explicitly advocated creationism or intelligent design.
About 60% took an "avoidance" approach, teaching evolution incompletely or presenting it as controversial, rather than as the foundation of modern biology.
That means that 72% are not doing their job as they should.
Kids are getting dumber, because your whole society is worshiping stupidity. That's because of your side turning away from facts, critical thinking and science. Your politicians were literally banning schoolbooks, because it mentioned or explained critical thinking. There is a brain drain ongoing in your country, because educated people are leaving. A 2025 Nature poll of more than 1,600 U.S.-based researchers found that about 75% of respondents said they were considering leaving the U.S. Many mentioned Europe and Canada as possible destinations. Other countries are trying to recruit them. Universities and research organizations in Europe, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere have been positioning themselves to attract researchers
who are frustrated with US conditions.
It requires the best teachers, with the highest motivation, to make something
of them. Those schools are already underfunded, because of your dumb system of funding. Many teachers are buying supplies from their own money.
And now you want to punish them for the kids they are getting.
If you work at a factory and you make mistakes that cost the factory money you get fired.
Teachers work all year and their students score low, they just march for raises as if they still did a good job . Their "product" sucks,
People voted for Trump, because he promised change. He ended up changing a lot, but nothing in favor of their ability to get out of poverty. His cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and reduction of ACA subsidies. Most Americans cannot pay a $500 emergency expense. What do you think will happen to a family, if a kid needs an operation? A simple procedure costs thousands of dollars. My girlfriend gets treatment worth at least $1000/month now. This is paid by our health insurance, but in your country most people would be fucked. We make close to 3 times the median income, and we would struggle to pay for it.
Why evaluating teachers by test scores is unfair:
• Outside factors dominate: A student's home life, trauma, and parents' socioeconomic status impact scores way more than any teacher can.
• Unequal starting points: One teacher might get a class of advanced learners, while another gets students who are years behind.
• Teaching to the test: It forces teachers to drill exam questions instead of teaching critical thinking, creativity, or life skills.
• High margin of error: Statistically, class test scores fluctuate heavily year-over-year due to random factors, making them unreliable for hiring or firing.
What a fair evaluation method looks like instead:
• The Holistic (360-Degree) Approach: Combining multiple sources so no single bad day or difficult class ruins a teacher's career.
• Structured classroom observations: Principals or peers evaluating actual teaching skills, classroom management, and student engagement.
• Student feedback surveys: Anonymous questionnaires asking students if the teacher explains well, offers help, and creates a safe environment.
• Measuring growth, not just final scores: Looking at individual student progress from September to June, rather than just the final test grade.
Your whole thinking about education, as filling kids' heads with facts and teaching them basic math, writing, and physics is obsolete because AI has turned knowledge into a free, instant commodity. And then you want to focus
the evaluation of teachers on how much they succeed in teaching kids
the exact things that can be easily replaced by AI.
Why the old school curriculum is not future-proof:
• AI excels at memorization: The old curriculum focuses on memorizing facts and formulas, which is exactly what AI does instantly and perfectly.
• Automation of basic skills: Tasks like basic coding, standard essay writing, and routine calculations are already automated before these kids even graduate.
• The "Skill Gap" danger: Schools are training kids to become "second-rate robots" instead of first-rate humans, leaving them unprepared for an AI-driven economy.
What schools should teach instead to survive the AI era:
• The 4 Cs (Human Skills): Critical thinking, Creativity, Collaboration, and Communication skills AI cannot genuinely replicate.
• AI Literacy & Prompting: Teaching kids how to co-pilot with AI, verify its biases, and use it as a tool rather than a replacement for thinking.
• Metacognition (Learning to Learn): Because technology changes so fast, the most important skill is adaptability and knowing how to learn new things quickly.
That MAGA joke was not just a joke. MAGA teaches people to be lazy thinkers. You are all trained to think only concretely and suppress your ability to think abstractly. All your media is enforcing concrete, emotionally vivid, identity-based thinking, over complex, abstract analysis.
The development of thinking in children is one of the central topics in developmental psychology, and it does involve a gradual movement from concrete, experience-based thinking toward the ability to use abstract concepts, hypothetical reasoning, and complex analysis. However, it is not a simple switch: adults continue to use concrete thinking in many situations, and children can show surprisingly sophisticated reasoning when the context is familiar.
The problem with MAGA is that it suppresses ADULT thinking.
Your idea about teachers is an example of a simplifying causal model:
Students perform poorly → teachers are responsible →
punish teachers → performance improves
I can do the same for ALL of your ideas:
People not working → laziness → reduce benefits
Crime → criminals → harsher punishment
Economic problems → government interference → reduce government
Homelessness → personal failure → remove assistance
Drug addiction → bad choices → harsher penalties
Poverty → lack of effort → fewer social programs
Inflation → government spending → cut government spending
High housing costs → too many regulations → remove regulations
Illegal immigration → weak borders → build stronger borders
Cultural conflict → bad values → restore traditional values
Political disagreement → enemies within → defeat or silence opponents
Loss of manufacturing jobs → foreign competition → restrict trade
Economic inequality → individual choices → no need for structural solutions
Poor health outcomes → personal responsibility failures → reduce healthcare
School disagreements → ideological indoctrination → remove certain curricula
Climate problems → environmental regulations → eliminate regulations
Social change → decline of tradition → return to the past
Government failures → government itself → privatize services
Media disagreement → bias → distrust all mainstream sources
Public disorder → weak policing → increase police powers
International problems → weak leadership → stronger leaders
Political problems → corrupt elites → replace the establishment
Declining community ties → loss of morality → restore old social norms
Security fears → enemy threat → preemptive strike → war
Disagreement between countries → one side is evil → confrontation → war
Resource shortages → people taking what belongs to us → seize resources
Terrorist attack or provocation → collective blame → military retaliation
The pattern you are always following can be summarized as:
Visible problem → single human cause → punishment / simple or fake solution
And this is adult thinking:
Visible problem → multiple interacting causes → systemic analysis → targeted interventions
And it's impossible to get you there on ANY subject.
Not because you are unable to, but because you have been trained
24/7 for decades to reject it.
Like what would you do to squelch irans desire or need for nuclear weapons? give them money? no cheaper than war. give them a nuclear weapon? a radical would seize it and kill us.
but just go thru 1 of them and lets see how it would work
Of course Israel claimed the opposite, but that is an obvious lie, because
they claimed for DECADES that Iran was MONTHS from having a nuke.
Only AFTER the Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, Iran gradually breached the deal’s limits, increasing uranium enrichment and expanding its nuclear capabilities.
Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA undermined US credibility and made future diplomacy harder. After proving that a signed agreement could be reversed, the US lost leverage; what is being offered now is FAR WEAKER than the strict limits and inspections the original deal achieved.
How it would work, is to NOT elect an untrustworthy FUCK-UP for president.
And that same FUCK-UP is now seeking to help Saudi Arabia develop
a civilian nuclear program, including uranium enrichment on Saudi soil, without requiring anything close to the inspection and restriction regime
that Iran accepted under the JCPOA. Do you remember that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and none were Iranians?
only registered users can see external links
Of course $75 million, a public apology, and "naturalization to this beautiful country” is in order! Perhaps the next Democrat President will make Mr. Ortiz-Vite’s demands come true!
I can understand Phart thinking like this but, you Bella? It must be getting very hot in La Belle. 😥
2013–2022 homicide convictions in Texas:
Group ---------------------- Homicide convictions ----- homicide conviction rate
Native-born Americans ---------- 7,109 ----------------- 3.0 per 100,000
Undocumented immigrants ------- 472 ----------------- 2.2 per 100,000
Legal immigrants -------------------- 336 ----------------- 1.2 per 100,000
still alive. Deny that math.
--------------------------------------- added after 23 hours
By the way, can I ask how many generations it takes to become a 'native'?
Phart, that leaves out your pet racial biased group. 🤣🤣
Our homicide/manslaughter death rate is 0.68 per 100,000. By YOUR logic,
we should ban those violent Americans from coming to our country. Fortunately,
we understand that they are freedom and science refugees, who are fleeing
a fascist regime, that they don't agree with. Still, we should vet them carefully, because it appears that lust for murder and violence is IN YOUR GENES.
New Comment Go to top