I WAS THE FIRST TO ADD A 9 TO A C NOW EVERY ACOUSTIC COVER FROM 1988 TO 2004 OWES ME $6
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short
I WAS THE FIRST TO ADD A 9 TO A C NOW EVERY ACOUSTIC COVER FROM 1988 TO 2004 OWES ME $6
Sexual assault victims have a time limit. Copyright infringement “victims” do not. Tracks.
you think that I’m in favor of everything I’m not currently talking about?
who picks what habits are good and what are bad? who decides what happens to data beyond this? can you going to mcdonalds twice a day be shared with your health insurer? can you going to that rally be shared with the local police? with your landlord? are you comfortable with everyone knowing everything? because there’s two things you do with data: analyze, and sell.
Patch your spotify install to get free premium. If they’re gonna raise prices and lower what they pay musicians, there’s no valid reason not to.
Alexa, play John Mellencamp - Ain’t That America
I never understood why that phrase was ever used as if it were an excuse.
A thought-terminating cliche is a rhetorical device intended to end a discussion without actually resolving it. The idea is to say something that the other party more or less has to agree to without regard to whether it actually has any bearing on the discussion at hand, and then refuse to discuss further. This makes it seem like the discussion is over and, as the last person who scored a point, you’ve won. “It’s just a few bad apples” is one. “Let’s agree to disagree” is another. Trump almost singlehandedly invented one in the phrase “fake news”, which is ostensibly intended to mean “I don’t trust the source of that information” but is often used in an infinite regression where everything unfriendly to the arguer is fake news. It’s basically a deus ex machina for arguments; a way to escape a corner you’ve been backed into without ever admitting that you were wrong about anything.
this one is just trigger-happy incompetence, but the phrase “a few bad apples” ends with “spoil the whole barrel” and the police are a perfect example of that. The way they close ranks and try to protect one another from responsibility for really egregious shit means that not every cop is a criminal, but that every cop ignores crimes that other cops commit.
my wife’s friend is a big believer in “not all cops” and “only a few bad apples”
does your wife’s friend know how the phrase “a few bad apples” ends?
Looking forward to when taxpayers who did absolutely nothing wrong have to pay a 7 figure settlement to you for your medical damages and a second 6 figure settlement to the officer for wrongful termination and then a further 5 figures a year to the officer in disability payments for the trauma he went through in having to shoot and kill an unarmed man who was on his knees with his hands in the air and sobbing (TW - that last link is the body cam for the murder of Daniel Shaver, don’t click it unless you like utter depravity and really high stakes games of Simon Says).
The worst part is he killed a dude
It’s simultaneously better and worse than that. The suspect in the cruiser wasn’t hit. This means that not only can the officer not tell the difference between an acorn and small arms fire, but that he was also unable to hit a restrained target at very close range. The only thing keeping us safe from police incompetence is police incompetence.
“You fit the description of a suspect.”
“The description is white male between 5’5” and 6’5" wearing jeans and a t shirt."
“SHOTS FIRED! SHOTS FIRED! OFFICER DOWN!”
10 more whistleblowers
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
My condolences to their family in these trying times.
I’m just trying to establish conditions by which we all might agree that this is worth looking into before they happen. It’s easy to try to play connect the dots with the stars, there are a bunch of them already and you can just ignore the ones that don’t make the picture you want. I’m trying to add predictions to this theory in the name of the scientific method - if another whistleblower dies before his testimony is complete, that will be beyond what I can dismiss as coincidence.
The CEO of Bumble’s parent company, Richard Pictograph, pushed for the feature
Okay, but in the interest of not pretending that They Would Never™ can we all agree that if a THIRD whistleblower dies shortly before or during testimony that maybe something is happening here? You have the guy who committed suicide in the middle of depositions after telling his friend “If I commit suicide, no I absolutely did not” and now the healthy 45 year old who all of a sudden has multiple infections and a stroke. Is there a point at which you’d accept the idea that it’s a bit beyond coincidence that the deadliest place in the world seems to be the witness stand at a trial where Boeing is the defendant?
I mean, suiciding the guy who flat out told his friends “If I commit suicide no I didn’t” shows that agent 747 was due to update his techniques and understanding.
this happened to be back in the 90’s & 00’s when biden et al. spearheaded non-dischargeable student loan debt; anti-gay marriage; and a ban on gays in the military and now i’m permanently anti the party that rolled back don’t ask don’t tell, embraced marriage and healthcare rights for queer people and have forgiven tons of student loan debt. I’m definitely not a psy-op. Pay no attention to the fact that no one calls them ‘the democrat party’ except people who have 1000+ hours viewing fox news.
can confirm. source: did this 3 separate times