Page #2
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#107
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
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
It's a comedian, not serious
Odd that the comedian prefaced his skit by saying; “Very passionate people, my MAGA friends…..” I wonder if he’s inferring that the progressive/liberal folks are inherently more intelligent?
He might be inferring that liberals are more intelligent, but he is clearly saying
that MAGA has a aversion to USING their intelligence.
When you stop using a muscle, it gets mushy.
The brain needs training to stay flexible and strong too.
Does he have a point? How many times do you see comments berating 'book smarts'?
only registered users can see external links
(That's not my opinion, that's an opinion of the 'manosphere')
(They even have a point, but they don't ask themselves: "WHY?")
I must say that I tend to agree with the guy that looked like a “blueberry”. I understand that swans are monogamous and quite often are together for THEIR lifetime. The “as long as we both shall live” is not always true for human beings
It's also culture that makes girls appear more picky.
If a guy sleeps with lots of girls, he's considered a stud,
if a girl sleeps with lots of guys, she's considered a slut.
It's the 'manosphere' themselves that strengthens that culture.
It's culturally historically more important for women to pick the right man, than for men to pick the right woman, because the man was the provider of the family. Pick the wrong guy, and she is setting herself up for poverty the rest of her life. It's the 'manosphere' themselves that want women to be financially dependent on men.
It's the 'manosphere' themselves that want women to be obedient and unable to leave
a guy. They also think that beating a woman is legitimate punishment for disobedience. Well, that will result in women being very careful when they pick a guy.
These 'manosphere' also oppose abortion and celebrate restrictions on reproductive freedom. That doesn't very much improve sexual liberation for women. It makes picking
a good man more important too.
So, I don't know what the goals of these 'manosphere' guys are, but it looks like they don't think a lot about the consequences of their own ideology. If they want women to put out more, they should end the stigmas around women enjoying sex, support women to be financially independent, stop dominating women and support reproductive freedom.
A National Toxicology Program report indicates that fluoride levels above 1.5 mg/L are associated with lower IQ in children, exceeding the recommended 0.7 mg/L standard in U.S. water. While the EPA reviews these findings, public health groups continue to support standard community water fluoridation. Read the full update from the EPA at epa.gov.
Could explain the explosion of dumbass liberals?
Are liberals the only people who drink tap water?
By the way, many areas in your country are suffering from tap water that is polluted with Lead, Manganese, Arsenic, Mercury, Nitrate, PFAS and Pesticide residues, which also can/will affect the brains of children.
The Trump EPA has proposed or made changes that reduce environmental monitoring
and transparency, related to toxins in tap water.
Yes, a disproportionate number of America's worst lead-pipe problems are in older, heavily urbanized cities that currently vote Democratic. But that is largely an age/industrialization/geography phenomenon, not evidence that Democratic cities uniquely created the problem.
Cities/water utilities can be responsible for some or all of the relevant infrastructure, but ownership varies by jurisdiction, and the responsibility for ensuring safe drinking water is broader than simply “who owns the pipe?”.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the bipartisan infrastructure law Biden signed in November 2021, provided:
- $15 billion specifically for lead service-line identification and replacement over 5 years
- Another $11.7 billion in general Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which could also be used for lead-pipe replacement
- $50 billion total for drinking-water and wastewater infrastructure.
The Senate vote was 69–30. All 50 Democrats voted for it, along with 19 Republicans.
The final House vote was 228–206. 13 Republicans voted for it and 6 Democrats voted against it.
The infrastructure law was bipartisan, but the overwhelming majority of House Republicans opposed it. The LCRI was finalized on October 30, 2024, just before Trump took office. Trump's general deregulation agenda created a threat to the LCRI, but the EPA chose to defend it.
Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Detroit and Cincinnati all have Democratic political environments, yet they're pursuing substantial replacement programs. Pittsburgh in particular is doing exceptionally well. Pittsburgh Water says it replaced its 14,000th lead service line by December 2025 and is on track to eliminate all residential lead lines in its service area by the end of 2027.
There is also a big difference in cost:
Chicago: ~$31,000/line
Evanston: ~$15,000/line
Elgin: ~$10,950/line
Riverside: ~$9,200/line
The same contractors sometimes work in these communities. One explanation identified was that the suburbs make it easier to replace multiple lines along a block at once and have fewer administrative/permit costs.
The project is much more expensive in Chicago, because it has an extremely complicated underground environment. You're not just digging a hole and replacing a pipe: you're working around water mains, gas lines, electrical infrastructure, sewer lines, telecommunications, streets and sidewalks. And because Chicago is so old and densely built, some of this infrastructure is very difficult to map precisely.
Rural areas in the U.S. still have some lead water pipes, but generally far fewer than older industrial cities. Many rural households historically relied on private wells rather than centralized water systems, so they never had as many lead service lines to begin with. The remaining problem is partly an infrastructure-age issue: lead pipes are concentrated in communities that built extensive water systems during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and some smaller communities also have incomplete records about where lead lines remain.
an urban river.
Even bottled water has fluoride in it. Some bottled waters have more fluoride than fluoridated tap water, because fluoride occurs naturally in the groundwater or spring source. EU law requires the label to include an analytical composition listing its characteristic constituents. Above 1.5 mg/L, natural mineral water must carry a warning that it is unsuitable for infants and young children. Currently, the European benchmark for daily consumption is 3.3 mg of fluoride per day, from all sources. EFSA established this in its 2025 reassessment as a “safe level of intake” for adults and everyone over
8 y.o.. It is deliberately conservative and is intended to cover potential effects on the nervous system, thyroid, and bones.
only registered users can see external links
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.
Buying in bulk does save, but that idea is already in use for most all business's in America.
Have you saw any pubic owned building suitable for grocery store use? Not many around.
Less inventory, only staples? Ha who are you kidding? So you are saying the serfs can just eat beans and carrots and a occasional potato when the city gets them on sale? I can just see that working well. People are to lazy now to cook like folks did when the government actually gave out cheese and flour. that won't work.
The store better carry microwave meals and coffee beans and steaks for all the rich people driving to town to save money on groceries. OH ,rich people shouldn't buy at the community store? That is discrimination. that is not legal. Rich people have the right to save money as much as poor people do.
No profit? the damn stores are going to have to cover their own operating cost or the city will go bust. DUH.
However, the building is the easiest part. A city can lend money at low rates (2.5%), buy a building and use it at no profit. Grocery Stores often have to pay rent at cap rates between 5.5% and 6.7%, to some private equity firm.
Rich people are allowed to buy in these stores too. No card, ID or anything required.
The previous administration left Mamdani with a $12 billion budget deficit.
As of July 2026, the administration announced that the current budget deficit
has officially been brought down to zero ($0) and the budget is fully balanced.
America was built on small bussiness. Mom and pop stores and smaller chain stores will loose alot of bussiness and stock to these city "owned" stores and it will probably result in closures and lost jobs. the very thing that creates poverty.
Thus taking away choices for people of where to shop,and prompting travel to further locations, creating traffic,polution and etc.
Mamdani's plan focuses heavily on bypassing monopolies for a specific "core basket" of fresh, perishable staples, by sourcing fruits and vegetables directly
from regional farms in upstate New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
There are no choices without consequences.
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 done more for this country than any other president
Keep up the good work
Trump enabler, who one day tweaked his AI to make it call itself "MechaHitler"
and generated outputs that were wildly antisemitic, racist, and pro-Nazi.
Don't you think that you are being a bit ridiculous?
I already provided the characteristics that are considered to define fascism, and showed you how it fitted Trump for the most part. In the meantime he did lots of more things to make those characteristics fit even more.
At that time, he hadn't started a war yet. Now he attacked Iran under false pretenses, without getting permission from Congress, lying to the public, and committing serious war-crimes. He bombed a girl-school and then bombed the same area again in a second wave, killing first responders. Others include strikes
on homes or civilian neighborhoods, attacks on medical facilities or sites treating casualties, attacks on civilian infrastructure (bridges, roads, utilities), attacks on nuclear facilities (I understand that these are the primary targets, but because of
the nuclear risk to civilians it is considered a war-crime).
Trump attacked Venezuela and kidnapped their president Nicolás Maduro, who is still in custody with a trial date for June 1, 2027. Venezuelan government is now controlled by the US, the US has taken control of oil-related revenues, valued around $13 billion for an almost bankrupt state, and there are part of the money is suspected to be transferred to private offshore bank accounts.
The sanctions on Cuba are causing a complete collapse. Fuel shortages have caused repeated nationwide blackouts. Citizens are facing shortages of food, medicine, and basic goods. The situation is getting desperate.
Add this to the record that was already checking off most characteristics of fascism, and only your side still denies it.
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."
It's also very weird how angry you get about the idea of citizens looking out for each other. How much more should go to the billionaires or trillionaires, before YOUR life is supposed to get a bit better?
I call Trump a fascist, because he is using the EXACT SAME authoritarian playbook that all fascist in history used to gain power and maximize it to absolute rule.
You have been told about tyranny all your life, but you look the other way when
it's staring its dead eyes in yours.
only registered users can see external links
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.
New Comment Go to top