My disappointment is immeasurable.

Those God damn dastardly Dutch

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I don’t think it realy actually has much to do with guns. It’s about privacy. Something the Supreme Court has been trying to murder for the last 50 years.

Don’t get me wrong, I do see the gun owners arguments here. What’s wrong with putting up a sign? That’s a legitimate point. But the law itself and the Supreme Court challenge brings it into a different Realm. If the owner of a private domicile or business wants it to be different, they want to have individual decision making on a case-by-case basis, why shouldn’t they? It’s their private home or business and they can do what they want shouldn’t they?

He’s right but not for any of the right reasons.

$154.60 is still massively inflated from what the actual value should be.

Holy loaded question batman! Yeah I’m not gonna take this seriously with you just making these sweeping assertions with no evidence.

Rare win for the supreme court.

Like a tattoo someone got 20 years ago that could be interpreted as hate. Though it’s subjective.

Wow. Saying that one of the most notorious Nazis symbols could be interpreted as hate. Shit liberals say huh?

That isn’t even a conspiracy theory.

I actually made my first account here before I was site banned by reddit.

There’s a street not too far from me. This street has, I shit you not, at least thirteen baptist churches. I think I’d go burn them all down. No particular reason.

Well frankly i think the field of eco terrorism is about to expand greatly so maybe start preparing for that.

The Gulf War was before Fox was founded. However there absolutely was glee in its coverage by American media.

I strongly deny your assertion that the way the so called crack epidemic was reported on came entirely from the alphabet agencies. I suggest you do a little bit more reading about that, because the way the media in particularly legacy media covered, it was psychotically racist. Look no further than the myriad of new york times editorials about so called crack babies overrunning our hospitals. Now, corporate media doesn’t want you to remember how they reported on it, just like they don’t want you to remember that when people did start reporting on the cia’s complicity it was the ny times and the LA Times in particular who led the attacks on the reporters.

Major media outlets are controlled by corporations, they often are major corporations. This is an indisputable fact. One that absolutely colours, how all media is covered in our nation. It has always been thus. Though please note I never said none of it was accurate. I said it was incredibly biased toward corporate interests. Something nobody could argue against while maintaining any shred of reasonableness.

So when even non right wing news was hyping the lead up to the Iraq War that was accuracy? The utter glee with which they covered the gulf war? The New York Times, among others, basically dripping with racist lies about the “crack epidemic”? Etc…

Seems to me that what you call accurate is better described as the corporate interpretation of the news. Accuracy has never been the chief concern.

Has it? Has it served the american people? It served the corporate owners of said news organizations, but whether or not it’s actually supplied the things an informed populace needs to know is a different question? What’s your definition of relatively recently I guess?

The whole company is basically a place to hide debt. One giant ponzi scheme.

There is nothing wrong with only selling in your platform from a business standpoint. Though certainly plenty from a consumer standpoint. That isn’t the scenario though.

SEOs have never stopped a school shooting. 30 years or so we’ve been using them since Columbine and not once have they done what legislatures claim they are for. Putting a lot of children in prison they are great at though.