Just know  that project veritas videos are typically plagued with a large amount of cuts and edits to make things look worse then they actually do. Not saying that this is the case in this video, or that it should take away from the effects of what is going on -- because it is pretty wild to think about this.

But remember that everyone has a bias and there is a reason for everyone sharing what they do.

Imagine what Tucker and the rest of the people at fox say about Clinton (and Dems) behind the scenes.

Oh so you have to read between the lines in a poll? That tells a lot of the quality of the poll.

So in fact when the question is, as stated in your source, "is the use of violence against rich people justified?" the real question is "is the use of PROACTIVE violence and not in a case of seld defense against rich people justified?"

Ok great, there is no way that such a shitty question can change the results of course.

I have an idea, why bothering with questions? Next time juste say "on a poll of myself, 100% liberals eat babies for breakfast".

It will be easier.

^Its not proactive.  Excessive wealth and hoarding is already a form of violence.  Mitigating that is defense of said violence.

Given that there was no response from him, the comments are unnecessary.

I had to LOL at this for personal reasons.  He and I haven't exactly had the warmest, coziest relationship on the forum but I always thought he would have been good for the Chipmixer campaign.  Not because I agree with his posts, but he's certainly not a shitposter and his posts do get a lot of views.  Chipmixer would thus probably get their money's worth by having him in the campaign--but, not my decision.  

I also always thought that TECSHARE would have been on the wealthier side since he's been into bitcoin since the early days and wouldn't need to be in a campaign like Yobit's.  Funny the assumptions you can make about people on the internet, eh?

american billionaires, have modified china and added nazi kapitalism to it, thats the problem.

Tons of businesses, and individuals receive money from the federal government.  You think they should have to wave their right to contribute to a political campaign or lobby congress?

Should CVS, Walgreens, and every other pharmacy all be forbidden from spending money on lobbying because they accept Medicaid to fill prescriptions?

Should the NRA be forbidden because they are paid by the government to train law enforcement officers, rent out shooting ranges to federal agencies, and have a 10 year $40k/year grant from Fish and Wild Life Services?

What about any hotel, Restaurant, or store where a federal employee spends money for their job and uses government money?

What about a student that receives a federal grant for tuition?  Should they be allowed to donate $1 to a campaign?




I think this is a ridiculous argument.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

I was never sure you had no idea what communism was until now.  All this time I thought you were making a nuanced argument that involved mental gymnastics of connecting communism to the USSR/china/north korea to modern day leftists but now that you bring capitalist california into that realm, it turns out I was giving you too much credit. 

tecshare communism= any bad feature in society. 

It's total services, not funds.  I can't find a break down of how much is actually spent on each - but it seems pretty clear that the vast majority are from out of pocket or insured patients.  You're right though, the numbers are a bit deceiving.  I thought it was total money spent, but it's actually total services.  


Claiming they are taking federal funds and turning around and using it for lobbying and campaigning isn't accurate though.  Most of the money they receive from the federal government is a reimbursement for treating patients with Medicaid (over 75%) and the rest goes towards discounts for low income patients without insurance.

In 2018 they received:

563.8m from federal government
365.7m from private insurance companies and patients paying out of picket
413.6m in private donations

They only made $533,000 in campaign contributions (all democrats though) and spent $1.2m in lobbying. That's less than 0.002 % of their total revenue of which only 34% is federal.


Here are Planned Parenthoods financials for 2019:


https://i.gyazo.com/f4c2231062ef36b88f753608e8cfe308.png
https://i.gyazo.com/eca2278e05ceaebc6dac1993bc96b4c5.png

I might be off on a couple details but pretty sure the current laws (the Hyde Act mainly) don't allow for federal funding to cover abortions unless it's to save the womans life, or due to incest or rape.  And no, you can't just tell the doctor "I was raped".  You have to report it to the police and then have Medicaid send the waiver to planned parent hood at least 48 hours before the abortion.

Planned parenthood 'federal funding' is just another way of saying they accept patients with Medicaid (to be on Medicaid you can't make more than ~$17k a year) and offer a discount to Women not on Medicaid that don't have private insurance coverage.

I can't find any exact data.  But it seems like federally funded abortions are extremely rare.  Some doctors have said that in most cases women choose not to report it and just pay for the abortion or have their rapists/family members child.  TECSHARE would probably point out that some of them were probably lying to try and get a free abortion from his tax dollars, and he'd probably be right.   In most of these cases though "not letting men cum in them" wouldn't "correct their own issues".

The vast majority of abortions at Planned Parenthood are paid for out of pocket or through private health insurance, and abortions make up less than 4% of PP total services.  You could argue that they likely prevent far more abortions than they give.  (They also give out free condoms)

Planned Parenthood Services for 2017:

48.7% STD Testing
27.1% Contraception
13.4% Other Women's Health Services
6.3% Cancer Screening and Prevention
3.4% Abortion Services
1.1% Other Services



I think "all abortion should be illegal no matter what" crowd is a lot bigger than you think.

In 2019 (a few months after Kavanaugh was sworn in)13 states passed anti-abortion laws, knowing full well that they would be sued for passing an illegal law in hopes that the supreme court would hear the case and overrule roe v wade.  It's been decades since this was attempted.  With the make up of the Supreme Court, it's entirely possible it works.  They weren't just bible belt states either.  North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana all took a shot.

The most extreme law was passed in Alabama, it would make abortion due to incest or rape illegal.

You have made your points months ago (several red flags posted by you):

I would (and have) started threads about it, but of course any time I do the gnashing of the teeth, crying, and wailing from individuals such as yourself is never ending preventing any productive discussion. It is all part of the group effort to silence anyone criticizing the made men, and unless you get on your knees by ignoring the malfeasance of the other made men, then you are the them in the us vs them.

have a section for these specific threads to reside.   Make that section unable to self-moderate.  Problem solved, and an elegant solution altogether.   Use this thread for "reference" link; and have it contain all partaining data in that thread in the special section.

I like the idea especially if it involves transparency. So basically what you want is that aside from the reference link given in the flag by the scam accuser you also want the accused/accuser to have an option to link in a self moderated thread for the discussion the said flag? I really like the main point of the suggestion but I think the main flaw here is that the thread being a self-moderated one being handled by either the accused and the accuser, in my opinion neither one of them nor the ones who have already supported and opposed the flag should be handling the self-moderated thread. It's either another member or any of the mods create the self-moderated thread or not make the thread self-moderated at all to remove any kind of abuse once the second thread is linked to the flag. If the admin can create a way to automatically create another thread for logs and discussions once the flag is created then this would be of great convenience for both of the parties.

That's not what's happening at all. The tweet that your entire "news article" is based around is showing numbers that correspond to a different poll, pretending they are the numbers corresponding to the latest poll.

The title of the article you linked is this:

FOX NEWS POLL WAS ACTUALLY DEMOCRAT 48 REPUBLICAN 34 (D+14)

These numbers are part of A DIFFERENT POLL:

https://i.imgur.com/Fe4E3yw.png

https://www.scribd.com/document/426454752/Fox-News-Poll-September-15-17-2019

The numbers from your "news story" are from a mid September poll. The percentage identifying as Democrat actually dropped 1% since the last poll (the mid September one). The % identifying as Republican increased 1%.

https://i.imgur.com/dOwLt3i.png

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-results-october-6-8-2019

Apparently it turns out you can't read.

Look man, correcting your relentless onslaught of bullshit is getting boring. Again, you were wrong, and you'll never admit it due to your psychopathology. Good luck with your crucifixion.