“Fuck them poor people! 😠” vs “Fuck them poor people 😎 #blm”
Silencing people’s speech because you disagree with them? Sounds kind of tankie to me
It’s so fucking funny seeing some lib who didn’t know what hexbear was until like a week ago screeching about evil tankies in response to a relatively innocuous shitpost
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1120052 seems the tankies don’t sound like “tankies”?
As far as I’m aware, they already have a buttload of taxes capable of paying a healthcare service. Why don’t they have one already? Lobbies.
They would have to spend like 1% less on bombs per year so that’s a no go.
Actually, with less money going to healthcare profiteers, they would be able to spend more money on bombs.
Actually, the painter wrote a 6. They were commissioned to write a 6.
Fuck your perspective, people should consider the original intent and research rather than just argue about it. Calling it “free speech” doesnt make it right or moral.
Replace “original intent” with “context” and I agree 100% with you.
I think that this is important to point out because we don’t really have access to each other’s “intention” (whatever this means); at most what they say and do, and specially for politics there’s often a big mismatch between the alleged intentions of a policy vs. what the policy achieves.
Or, playing along the pic: if that random scribble is between a “5” and a “7”, then it means six, no matter if the author claims “actually it’s a nine”.
(NB: I’m discussing this on general grounds, based on the image. I’m not from USA nor discussing its healthcare.)
In this thread: People that oppose healthcare already proven all over the world screaming and crying about strawmen.
Sure is easy to win an argument when you’re arguing with a strawman of your own making. Let me try!
9: Society can only be maintained so long as individuals contribute at least as much as they get.
6: Gibs munny
