479
the party of jesus, folks.
It's a shame American Evangelicals can't read, or they'd realize they've been worshipping a filthy commie the whole time.
Wait until they find out he was a brown skinned middle easterner.
Jordan? Judah? Michael? Matthew? Luke? Those are all nice Christian boy names.
Supply Side Jesus for sure.
Hmmm, WWJD, What would Jesus do?
Set them on fire and send them to hell.
Jesus beating up merchants who set up shop outside a temple is canon. We have evidence Jesus has the will and capacity for violence and what he would do in an American state or federal legislative building would probably freak a lot of people out.
He didn't just flip tables and whip the moneychangers. He was so full of righteous fury that he left, and took hours to braid his own whip, came back, and then started flipping tables and whipping moneychangers.
In my head I like to envision him sitting on a rock, braiding the whip, and muttering to himself. Shit like:
"Mother fuckers, I swear to Dad, you don't even know what Monopoly is yet, and I'm gonna show you the proper ending to the Milton Bradley version of that game."
While the Apostles are just huddled around bewildered and scared since they have no clue what's about to happen, since they'd NEVER seen him even irritated before.
load more comments
(1 replies)
A "Safer Kentucky Act" that makes it extremely unsafe for one of our nation's most vulnerable groups.
Absolute ghouls.
These are the type of people who watch The Purge and think "hell yeah, can't wait brother!" As if their old dumbassas wouldn't be amongst the first purged.
I've known quite a few Doomers and Accerationists and each one has never served in the military, completely obsessed with guns, and seem to be scared of anyone different, if TEOTWAWKI went down I'd be pointing my crew in their direction for easy loot if there was a need.
It’s funny in a sick way that Tales from the Crypt had an episode about eating the homeless by an organization named G.H.O.U.L.S
Tales from the Crypt, man that takes me back.
Apparently you're talking about S03E10 Mournin' Mess.
Edit: Damn lol I remembered this as a kids' show, starts with fuck, shit, and titties!
load more comments
(3 replies)
Well yes but those aren’t people /s
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Safer Kentucky Act"
Orwellian is not a strong enough word. This shit is beyond parody.
It should be illegal to euphamize bills. What a load of deceptive shit.
Dystopian
Their plan to fight homelessness and mental illness is simple: Make them illegal! That should solve it.
Meanwhile, regulating firearms won’t work because then only criminals will have guns. These people are ducking evil.
load more comments
(1 replies)
These people can't have a shred of empathy. The homeless being treated like vermin. People at the lowest point of their lives, when they need help the most, are mistreated awfully by those in power.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
...
so that I may hunt them for sport
Stay classy America!
The bill says the use of force is "justifiable" if a defendant believes that criminal trespass, robbery, or "unlawful camping" is occurring on their property.
Great, so not only does it let them shoot homeless people, it lets them do it even if they "believe" it's happening. So you can just shoot someone on your property for no reason at all, and say "well, I though they were performing a robbery".
"They were scoping the place out to put up a tent, I had to shoot them officer."
"They didn't have anything with them"
"But I believed that was their purpose"
"Alright, checks out, have a nice day sir."
- Somewhere in near future in Kentucky if this passes
load more comments
(1 replies)
They're basically extending Castle Doctrine out to the sidewalk. Next they'll add you car to the list and you get to shoot anyone who cuts you off or makes eye contact with you while driving. After that you'll get a personal exclusivity zone and can shoot anyone who comes within ten feet of you in public as long as they look "homeless" (ie are poor and/or black).
load more comments
(2 replies)
Local police are reportedly opposed to the idea.
They say shooting random poor people is their job.
Then once passed, quietly reinterpret “property owners” as anyone with a right skin color. Just ask that Kenosha shooter how it’s done.
How fucking Christian of them...
2 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
3 defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
4 (a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony
5 involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
6 KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his or her
7 possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he or
8 she acts;[ or]
9 (b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable
10 property in his or her possession or in the possession of another person for
11 whose protection he or she acts; or
12 (c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act,
13 when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant,
14 the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the
15 individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force
16 against the defendant.
I haven't been through all the amendments yet, and I'm not a lawyer, but the author of the article may have mischaracterized a portion of the bill.
I'm not commenting on the particulars of this proposed bill one way or the other, but I was going to say that I wish these articles would at least link to the actual language of the proposed statute so I can decide whether I agree with the article writer's interpretation or if it's clickbait. (The same with court opinions. And heck, quotes are taken out of context all the time as well. Link me the original source in case I don't want trust the spoon feeding.)
load more comments
(1 replies)
How?
The article says:
The bill says the use of force is “justifiable” if a defendant believes that criminal trespass, robbery or “unlawful camping” is occurring on their property.
The bill says:
2 (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the
3 defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
... 12 (c) The commission of unlawful camping in violation of Section 17 of this Act,
13 when the offense is occurring on property owned or leased by the defendant,
14 the individual engaged in unlawful camping has been told to cease, and the
15 individual committing the offense has used force or threatened to use force
16 against the defendant.
A dead person can't defend themselves. All the aggressor has to do is say, "They threatened to kick my ass, so I shot them in theirs." How do you dispute that the defendant is lying?
You don't and that's why cops have told me in plain words if you ever have to shoot someone, its better for you if they don't survive.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Prosecutors have to conduct a court-observed seance in order to convict you.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Maybe the NRA should distribute guns to the homeless in an outreach program to show that conservatives do care about the downtrodden. Everyone has a right to bear arms, right? Isn't that the conservative mantra? Well, except for the homeless poor, minorities, etc...
Everyone has the right to bear arms! *
~*Everyone~ ~defined~ ~exclusively~ ~as~ ~white~~,~~land~ ~owning~~,~ ~politically~ ~conservative~ ~male~ ~over~ ~the~ ~age~ ~of~ ~35~
I bet you could pull it of if you were a white conservative male living out of your pickup and had a gun to keep away those thieving (insert group conservatives love to hate on here).
Like, where else are they supposed to go? They refuse to build any kind of a shelter becuse nobody wants to have one around them. Ironically instead they spend all their money building billion dollar sports stadiums. They just want to criminalize being poor.
Such a difficult societal ill to solve. (Or maybe not?) On the one hand nobody wants, nor should be forced to deal with a homeless encampment in their backyard. On the other, where is one supposed to go? To the woods to survive off the land? Can't as it's mostly private property and it's illegal to camp, or stay longer than 2 weeks in any one spot on all government owned land (of which I am aware, including all those millions of acres of BLM land). So, we need an alternative and as you suggested, our priorities as a society seem to be askew. Then what about those who we simply can't house and feed and stabilize for myriad reasons (mental health being a big, if not the biggest one)? Some people will say we can't just continue "throwing money at xyz unsolvable problem." And I see validity in this. Others may perhaps argue that a professional sports stadium brings in revenue to the city beyond what is paid out of the tax coffers. (I'd like to see the math if stadiums ever end up providing a return on investment for a city--I have significant doubts.) Anyone out there have some legitimate ideas on solving the problem besides sending people to the woods to die or be arrested vs building huge encampments that I foresee quickly becoming superfund sites? Is there a model out there that could be applied to the US?
They want the purge to be real so badly.
Man, bad week to be homeless! By Friday they'll be legalizing priests' ability to crucify homeless people who trespass.
This is going to be a great example for all the 2a nuts that more than just homeowners have weapons.
Waiting to hear about the first time a would-be victim manages to outdraw the bloodthirsty landowner coming for them. Will they get a pass as an act of self defense or would they be charged under the old laws?
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
479 points (98.0% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3836 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS