"They're only in it for the money" is a tired old argument. If you were to say the same about a leader or executive harry approves of, he'd respond "You can't expect him to do it for free."So?
That's like saying because Besos or any other Million or Billionaire is doing so well, everyone else is too?
Dont jump to conclusions. This one has yet to be proven or disproven."They're only in it for the money" is a tired old argument. If you were to say the same about a leader or executive harry approves of, he'd respond "You can't expect him to do it for free."
Well, either that or he knows this-or-that person wasn't wealthy before they got involved with BLM.
Anyway, it's all just logical fallacies designed to keep you from doing what he's afraid to do: address the issue.
I try not to. It's a long walk back.Dont jump to conclusions. This one has yet to be proven or disproven.
Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation has not filed public IRS disclosures.
The foundation received its official non-profit designation from the Internal Revenue Service in December 2020 according to the Associated Press, and will be required to file public tax documents in the future. No public financial filings have yet been made.
There is more than one BLM organisation. This one is "intriguing".I try not to. It's a long walk back.
I don't know about BLM. And neither do you, and neither does harry.
I can't imagine it's anything other than the usual mix: a bunch of well-meaning folk, a few professionals, a few screamers, a few con artists, and a few jobsworths.
If you're gonna point to one of these groups and shriek "See? See? THIS is what they REALLY are! wouldn't it make the most sense to point to the well-meaning folk who are the majority?"
Unless, of course, y'all got an ax to grind.
Balko on Rittenhouse/McMichael TrialsSome have cited the Rittenhouse verdict to demand restrictions on self-defense laws. But that, too, would be a mistake. As the adage goes, bad cases make bad law. And the Rittenhouse case was as bad as they come. Rittenhouse made some awful decisions that resulted in unnecessary deaths. But given the specific circumstances he encountered, he was legally permitted to defend himself. Changing the law is unlikely to deter or punish future Rittenhouses. The new laws will be applied in the same racially disparate manner the current laws are.
Well, you can bet your last loony we ain't got enough sense to pass a law that forbids being off your property or property where you have the owner's permission armed when the jurisdiction is in a public-safety emergency.I have to admit that, at this point, I can see why widdle Kyle was found not guilty and can even grudgingly accept it.
But I also think that he should not have been there, should not have had a gun and he should have stuck to 'just helping' like he said he was there to do. I DO wonder if his verdict will encourage more incidents of so called 'self defence' in similar situations, and wonder how messed up court cases are going to get when multiple people start claiming 'self defence' while shooting at one another.
He's still a racist little shit and I feel no sympathy for his being taken for a ride by Trump's people but the outcome of this case is frightening and matters more than poor widdle Kyle.