TBayXXXVII

I'll have to check it out some time.

Of course, I was just making the point that back then, that was the current position of the Democrat party.

When he talked about what he'd implement, the crowd was applauding and Oprah clearly liked what he was saying. When he got into office in 2016, he was trying to implement the things he talked about in this video. Today, those policies are considered far-right when over 30 years ago, they were considered mainstream Left.

0.0 Did you see that splash? Ugh.

Agreed.

Just DIO, but I think you have the only others. Not sure what he's looking at. I am guessing that the suggestion of B.T.O. is purely for the sake of humor. I think "YAZ" is cheating.

Those are 2 syllables.

Of course it won't "be", but the reason is because it'll actually fix the problem without pandering or creating government jobs that won't serve any purpose. The enforcement of this is extremely feasible and easy. Well, maybe not in high liberal areas where crimes go unpunished... but in a normal functioning town or state without morons in charge, these protests happen in high traffic areas where there's generally tons of witnesses and cameras. On top of that, this bill would help the economy. It would give incentive for people to buy cameras for their cars. , see... it's a win for everyone except the douche bags of society. Also, insurance companies go after individuals for payment all the time, how is this any different? In fact, it makes it easier for the insurance companies to have a direct path to restitution. If a person causes damage to another person's vehicle, that person is liable for repairs across all avenues, so that aspect of my proposed law is neither cruel or unusual. If a person is indirectly involved in another person's death without actually doing the killing, that person can still be charged with a crime... such as involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter, so that aspect of my proposed law is neither cruel or unusual (see, intending to use a taser on someone and accidently pulling a gun or texting while driving or drunk driving). If a person is indirectly involved in another person's death, while participating in a reckless & illegal activity which death is a known possible outcome, that person can still be charged with an even higher grades of murder, so that aspect of my proposed law is neither cruel or unusual (see being involved in armed robbery with someone else and that person kills another person). You are also willfully holding someone captive, such as kidnapping. If you kidnap someone, or a group of people, and someone dies during the process... being charged with first degree murder is possible, hence, not cruel or unusual. If you are blocking traffic, you are in a dangerous environment for pedestrians. You are doing so, purposefully, recklessly, and illegally, with a complete grasp of the outcomes of your actions. If those outcomes come to fruition, you should be held accountable, according to the law of standards already on the books.

I'm starting to think weepaws is a Rusty alias.

That's why it needs to be written. That's the problem with laws. @MDC has is right (probably the first time anyone's said that before), this bill is just like every other bill written by every other politician. The role of this bill it to make it look like the government is doing something that the public wants. What's actually happening is that the government is creating a job(s), to give as a courtesy to donors, as a thanks to helping them get elected. The people that are hired won't actually do any real work. At least my law proposal accomplishes the goal without anyone in the government being hired. It's purely an enforcement for people already in place. Notice, I said it would fix the problem... and it absolutely would. Laws these days don't fix problems, they exacerbate them and often times cause new ones that cost more money.

Here's how you fix the problem... the law should be written as such: Any person or persons who block roadways during an action of protest, any and all outcomes of interactions with drivers are to be deemed the fault of the protester. To wit, if a protester is killed by a vehicle, the protester (and every other protester present), is responsible for the repairs on the vehicle... as such, any life insurance policy will be required to be first and foremost, used to pay off the automobile insurance company for repairs, before any other uses of those funds are to be made available. If a protester obstructs emergency vehicles and it results in a death, that protester (and every other protester present), will be charged with a count of first degree murder for every person who died, and face maximum penalties.

That's how I've always understood it. That's how it is in my town as well.

That's a liberal government for you. I think that focker should be frying on a chair.

If K-9's are "cops", this dude killed a cop. I think the penalty is obvious.

You know you're a far leftist when you think CNN is non-partisan.

Now go count the MSM & your politicians (you're not fooling me by saying you voted for Trump or Republicans), and see how many times they say it and get back to me.

Don't have to, I'm told it all the time.

Yup, they are.

Cool, thanks!

Which is why he's perfect for the job... it's because politics, today, is a clown show. All of it.

/thread.

Yeah, that works. As soon as the Democrat party feels the "victims" are intrenched, they'll focus on another demographic to make into victims. Once the prior victims start to realize the Democrats are fool of crap, they start to move right and boom, the Democrats make them a high priority again.

Did racism all of a sudden go away?

No, this is really a shocker and definitely news. I've been told by liberals that only Donald Trump and Republican's lie.

It'll be a turnstile, just like racism, for the Democrat party.