US judicial logic for protecting the political and economic elite has no bounds
US judicial logic for protecting the political and economic elite has no bounds
You're viewing a single thread.
I have yet to see mass adoption of "Luigi is a terrorist" amongst the US population. In fact, quite the opposite.
The real hero is....WTF. How come we don't provide Luigi with billions in armament to see if he can take down the healthcare monopoly?
The war against high healthcare cost. Sounds reasonable to me. Like the first retaliation strike against Palestine seemed reasonable to me. But then Nathan Yahoo kept going and by the third day I was like dude WTF! But what did we do? We kept helping! WTF again! Then it was kids getting followed by drones and blown up to pieces. WTF!
Now Luigi comes along and fights against something that actually makes a difference for us the regular people and he gets to become the incarcerated person? The criminal? This is wrong. I hope Trump pardons Luigi. If not because Trump wants to do the opposite of what Democrats do, then maybe because the syphilis is eating his remaining brain cells. If he did, he would probably win the public like no one has ever bigly won the public ever before by gerrymandering the fuck out of every county. It's a great middle finger to be given where I would care that it happened.
Yes, but the legal system does not act on the whims of mass adoption. It's like that mom in Florida who got slapped with terrorism charges for telling blue cross blue shield the deny, defend, depose line over the phone. The harsh crimes are there to chill anyone who might step out of line.
I feel like we, as a society, should agree on a set of rules and laws, that we adhere to in order to ensure acceptable conduct and behavior.
Almost like a contract of sorts, one that is socially acceptable..
Yes, but the legal system does not act on the whims of mass adoption.
Locke and Rousseau want to know your location
iirc she didnt get terrorism charges, but she did get charged with some bullshit
You're omitting the part where she said, "You people are next." That makes it a terroristic threat.
"You people are next" is a threat based on your own position of power. A politician saying that, yeah that's a threat. Some random person saying it someone else, not so much.
If someone has a recording of an ex saying that to them over the phone, the best you're getting is a restraining order, if you get anything at all.
Maybe if she said "I'm coming for you next", then that would have more weight. But now we're in hypothetical land, so who cares.
Obviously a random person is a threat, considering recent events.