That was the reality on the ground, in most places. I'm sure you could still find racists, especially in the south. They didn't try pumping up the racist rhetoric so much before Obama, although a couple black leaders still did it.
When's the last time you read a book?
Start with G Edward Griffin.
TONS of evidence. All of which you're completely unaware of, apparently.
More like Buddhism bot. On acid.
Lol username checks out
If you laid off the LSD for a while, reality might come into focus.
He did build the wall. You're such a dumbass that you missed it.
Everything they've said is coming to pass, and is an excellent predictor of how they wield their influence.
They don't let everyone know. They make pointed announcements to key personnel, at strategic times.
And you are completely unaware of everything they've disclosed, apparently.
"A lion among men," you mean :)
how was it like when trump became president the first time, or obama, or george w bush? i remember there being so much division on racism, rich vs poor, right vs left, terrorism vs west, etc. when i was a kid.
There absolutely was not this degree of polarization. By the mid-90's, pretty much nobody cared if you were white or black, for example. D&C, divide and conquer strategy, absolutely is a primary tool of the WEF et al. We the People can defeat that, need to, and won't be able to accomplish anything until we do.
We don't need to assume anything about the goals of the Rothschilds, they've been stated plainly and in public.
DJT is "the anti-Rothschild," not that he can fix everything.
Thank you for presenting sanity! I thought that was banned on the innerwebz?!?
I've not personally seen a success story to that extent with a pitbull, but I have seen them go from viciously snarling and even biting to at least manageable and affectionate under a watchful eye. They're neither the easiest nor the hardest breed, and ownership of one should not be taken lightly.
That's quite a claim! Are you saying you could have trained that particular individual to not attack any other animal, while off the leash and running free, under any and all circumstances?
This may have been a situation where the dog wasn't being protective in any way, but purely aggressive. They don't get along well with children or other animals. Owning a pit bull means understanding this, and being vigilant.
Or going broke paying for your irresponsibility.
Notice what this tracks: fatality.
It's a myth that pitbull jaws "lock." What's true is that they have a very high bite force, pound for pound.
Chihuahuas are more aggressive as a breed, by far. The damage they're capable of causing does not compare.
just pretend like all my problems were someone else's problems
That's not what the Bible teaches. If you sorted that out you would find it isn't easy, but it is worthwhile.
They have never changed from their moon god.
HUGE differences. You have no basis to be talking on the topic.
Two songs that can be construed to speak to this:
this masquerade by George Benson (meh)
and The Royal Scam by Steely Dan, which I think is genius.
By the time you see through their shell game you realize that it's We the People who are taxed by the Fed.
I'm not saying the US has not been reduced to a corporation, only that you haven't demonstrated it to be a fact. Jimmy Carter remarked that it's an oligarchy, which I found to be a horror beyond human description at the time. He was right. I'm not sure this needs to be differentiated from fascism?
The hallmarks of problems you've indicated are indisputable. The nomenclature of corporation may not matter?
The US is a corporation
You make the assertion. You have nothing to back it up with. Just a naked assertion.
US Corporation means a corporation that is a “domestic corporation” within the meaning of the U.S. Tax Code (or any Subsidiary of such corporation that is itself a “domestic corporation” within the meaning of the U.S. Tax Code.
Your claim doesn't fit. Who's going to tax the US?
Your arrogance is why you'll never make a point that's even reasonable.
Case law is always needed. You can't have words just say what they mean, not in the US legal system. You can claim whatever you want but it will always be without foundation.
None of this presents a compelling argument, either way.
Your best angle would be to point out that the plain reading of text usually has no bearing on the interpretation of law. You'd then need to present case law and try to establish your point.
Thinking is not part of your repertoire.