Jacques Strap said:
Irony alert.
Old lady is wearing a MAKA - Make America Kind Again shirt.
The back of her shirt says "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".Old woman wearing a "be kind" shirt tries to decapitate a Trump effigy pic.twitter.com/lUoSzDzDc5
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) September 22, 2025
historian said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
First of all I don't know if Hegseth is actually on any ballot. Certainly none in Texas.
Secondly, if he were on the ballot one could feel comfortable voting for someone who is placing the rule of law over criminal behavior and anarchy.
Are we a nation of laws by, of, & for the people or are we nation in which criminals rule the streets and sane people cower in fear? Wolves or sheep, good vs evil: it's an easy choice.
Using the military to violate constitutional rights is the opposite of the rule of law.
No one has a constitutional right to obstruct justice, aid criminals, or prevent the government's legally constituted agents from completing their constitutionally authorized duties. The constitution does authorize, however, the government to suppress rebellion. What those drink ska were going certainly qualifies. Also, every government agent takes an oath to uphold the constitution and to defend the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. By their actions these people made themselves the domestic enemies of the US. It's all pretty straightforward and completely constitutional.
Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Realitybites said:ScottS said:
Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?
Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.
1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.
I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters
I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:
In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.
As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.
However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.
So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.
Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.
It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.
No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.
There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.
Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.
Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.
Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.
She was responding to his example. There's no reason to think either of them was limiting it to a guy or two.
That's worse if she is normalizing the physical assault of police officers carrying out their duties by violent political mobs and implies that is acceptable and no other measures should be taken to stop them.
Deadly force can be used when and only when necessary. She implies nothing else.
BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Realitybites said:ScottS said:
Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?
Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.
1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.
I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters
I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:
In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.
As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.
However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.
So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.
Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.
It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.
No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.
There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.
Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.
Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.
Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.
She was responding to his example. There's no reason to think either of them was limiting it to a guy or two.
That's worse if she is normalizing the physical assault of police officers carrying out their duties by violent political mobs and implies that is acceptable and no other measures should be taken to stop them.
Deadly force can be used when and only when necessary. She implies nothing else.
A mob attacking police officers when they are trying to arrest someone is a deadly force situation.
Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:
You're trying very, very hard not to comprehend the exchange.
I would submit you're trying very, very hard to read something into the exchange that doesn't exist. I am not fan of Hegseth, but he answered the questions she asked (when she wasn't interrupting him with her grandstanding).
Get back to me when military officers start firing at the legs of unarmed protestors.
I'll bookmark "unarmed" in the dictionary just for you.
Better yet, why don't you tell us what she means by unarmed, because her previous comments suggest deadly force shouldn't be used against even those hurling concrete at military personnel. But she does say they can be arrested (though by whom, I am not sure, since she seems to claim the military can't arrest or detain anyone).
It's all there in the video.
Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Realitybites said:ScottS said:
Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?
Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.
1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.
I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters
I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:
In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.
As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.
However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.
So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.
Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.
It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.
No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.
There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.
Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.
Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.
Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.
She was responding to his example. There's no reason to think either of them was limiting it to a guy or two.
Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Realitybites said:ScottS said:
Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?
Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.
1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.
I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters
I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:
In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.
As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.
However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.
So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.
Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.
It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.
No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.
There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.
Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.
Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.
Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.
She was responding to his example. There's no reason to think either of them was limiting it to a guy or two.
Again, she said simply arrest him. She didn't say it's ok to use force against someone throwing concrete. And she didn't specify who could make the arrest - as she apparently believes the military isn't authorized to do so.
You're being intellectually dishonest and just gaslighting at this point.
Sam Lowry said:historian said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
First of all I don't know if Hegseth is actually on any ballot. Certainly none in Texas.
Secondly, if he were on the ballot one could feel comfortable voting for someone who is placing the rule of law over criminal behavior and anarchy.
Are we a nation of laws by, of, & for the people or are we nation in which criminals rule the streets and sane people cower in fear? Wolves or sheep, good vs evil: it's an easy choice.
Using the military to violate constitutional rights is the opposite of the rule of law.
No one has a constitutional right to obstruct justice, aid criminals, or prevent the government's legally constituted agents from completing their constitutionally authorized duties. The constitution does authorize, however, the government to suppress rebellion. What those drink ska were going certainly qualifies. Also, every government agent takes an oath to uphold the constitution and to defend the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. By their actions these people made themselves the domestic enemies of the US. It's all pretty straightforward and completely constitutional.
Again, none of this is on point.
Sam Lowry said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Realitybites said:ScottS said:
Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?
Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.
1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.
I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters
I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:
In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.
As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.
However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.
So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.
Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.
It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.
No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.
There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.
Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.
Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.
Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.
She was responding to his example. There's no reason to think either of them was limiting it to a guy or two.
Again, she said simply arrest him. She didn't say it's ok to use force against someone throwing concrete. And she didn't specify who could make the arrest - as she apparently believes the military isn't authorized to do so.
You're being intellectually dishonest and just gaslighting at this point.
You know I don't get into comprehension debates with you, Mothra. Your problem, in case you're interested, is that you're conflating the answers to two separate questions. Enough said.
Assassin said:🚨 BREAKING:
— NizNellie3 (@NizNellie3) September 23, 2025
The University of Michigan has announced that two professors who glorified the murder of Charlie Kirk, will NOT be fired.
Instead, the university will invest $50 MILLION taxpayer-dollars to "build a center dedicated to diversity and civil discourse." Sooo...DEI. pic.twitter.com/XrmjhCgnDk
Assassin said:Assassin said:🚨 BREAKING:
— NizNellie3 (@NizNellie3) September 23, 2025
The University of Michigan has announced that two professors who glorified the murder of Charlie Kirk, will NOT be fired.
Instead, the university will invest $50 MILLION taxpayer-dollars to "build a center dedicated to diversity and civil discourse." Sooo...DEI. pic.twitter.com/XrmjhCgnDk
One of the comments underneath: The Board of Trustees at UM is openly defying the federal government - we dare you to punish us. They get $1.24 Billion per year from the US Government, so the Dept. of Education and DOJ has leverage. Let's see what the Trump Team actually does.
Robert Wilson said:Assassin said:Assassin said:🚨 BREAKING:
— NizNellie3 (@NizNellie3) September 23, 2025
The University of Michigan has announced that two professors who glorified the murder of Charlie Kirk, will NOT be fired.
Instead, the university will invest $50 MILLION taxpayer-dollars to "build a center dedicated to diversity and civil discourse." Sooo...DEI. pic.twitter.com/XrmjhCgnDk
One of the comments underneath: The Board of Trustees at UM is openly defying the federal government - we dare you to punish us. They get $1.24 Billion per year from the US Government, so the Dept. of Education and DOJ has leverage. Let's see what the Trump Team actually does.
We need to have a broader conversation around how and why our taxpayers help support universities at any level whatsoever. There may have been a time that was appropriate. That time is past.
We have too many of them, and they're not providing sufficient value to many of their students.
There is absolutely no reason for me, as a taxpayer, to be funding university research all over the country as brokered by some bureaucrats. If you can't find industry or private charitable funding, maybe your project isn't all that great, or you need to learn to sell your ideas.
Robert Wilson said:Assassin said:Assassin said:🚨 BREAKING:
— NizNellie3 (@NizNellie3) September 23, 2025
The University of Michigan has announced that two professors who glorified the murder of Charlie Kirk, will NOT be fired.
Instead, the university will invest $50 MILLION taxpayer-dollars to "build a center dedicated to diversity and civil discourse." Sooo...DEI. pic.twitter.com/XrmjhCgnDk
One of the comments underneath: The Board of Trustees at UM is openly defying the federal government - we dare you to punish us. They get $1.24 Billion per year from the US Government, so the Dept. of Education and DOJ has leverage. Let's see what the Trump Team actually does.
We need to have a broader conversation around how and why our taxpayers help support universities at any level whatsoever. There may have been a time that was appropriate. That time is past.
We have too many of them, and they're not providing sufficient value to many of their students.
There is absolutely no reason for me, as a taxpayer, to be funding university research all over the country as brokered by some bureaucrats. If you can't find industry or private charitable funding, maybe your project isn't all that great, or you need to learn to sell your ideas.
D. C. Bear said:Robert Wilson said:Assassin said:Assassin said:🚨 BREAKING:
— NizNellie3 (@NizNellie3) September 23, 2025
The University of Michigan has announced that two professors who glorified the murder of Charlie Kirk, will NOT be fired.
Instead, the university will invest $50 MILLION taxpayer-dollars to "build a center dedicated to diversity and civil discourse." Sooo...DEI. pic.twitter.com/XrmjhCgnDk
One of the comments underneath: The Board of Trustees at UM is openly defying the federal government - we dare you to punish us. They get $1.24 Billion per year from the US Government, so the Dept. of Education and DOJ has leverage. Let's see what the Trump Team actually does.
We need to have a broader conversation around how and why our taxpayers help support universities at any level whatsoever. There may have been a time that was appropriate. That time is past.
We have too many of them, and they're not providing sufficient value to many of their students.
There is absolutely no reason for me, as a taxpayer, to be funding university research all over the country as brokered by some bureaucrats. If you can't find industry or private charitable funding, maybe your project isn't all that great, or you need to learn to sell your ideas.
There are a lot of benefits to basic research that doesn't always have an immediate commercial payoff. It might be useful for the state to find that. However, there are many things that are funded that have no payoff of any kind, commercial or otherwise, ever.
Robert Wilson said:D. C. Bear said:Robert Wilson said:Assassin said:Assassin said:🚨 BREAKING:
— NizNellie3 (@NizNellie3) September 23, 2025
The University of Michigan has announced that two professors who glorified the murder of Charlie Kirk, will NOT be fired.
Instead, the university will invest $50 MILLION taxpayer-dollars to "build a center dedicated to diversity and civil discourse." Sooo...DEI. pic.twitter.com/XrmjhCgnDk
One of the comments underneath: The Board of Trustees at UM is openly defying the federal government - we dare you to punish us. They get $1.24 Billion per year from the US Government, so the Dept. of Education and DOJ has leverage. Let's see what the Trump Team actually does.
We need to have a broader conversation around how and why our taxpayers help support universities at any level whatsoever. There may have been a time that was appropriate. That time is past.
We have too many of them, and they're not providing sufficient value to many of their students.
There is absolutely no reason for me, as a taxpayer, to be funding university research all over the country as brokered by some bureaucrats. If you can't find industry or private charitable funding, maybe your project isn't all that great, or you need to learn to sell your ideas.
There are a lot of benefits to basic research that doesn't always have an immediate commercial payoff. It might be useful for the state to find that. However, there are many things that are funded that have no payoff of any kind, commercial or otherwise, ever.
I think there was a time that was true. I believe that private research funding in the US has now taken the lead over public funding. And, bottom line, we pay way too much in taxes just to cover the social welfare net and the military. I don't need to also throw money into a blind pot for bureaucrats to distribute along with university wonks. I don't trust that it is, overall, being put to good use. Let the marketplace handle it.
I also don't think there's any reason, in this day and age, for taxpayers to supplement college tuition. It's grown way way way past inflation for way too long. Universities can work out student access without our help.
D. C. Bear said:Robert Wilson said:D. C. Bear said:Robert Wilson said:Assassin said:Assassin said:🚨 BREAKING:
— NizNellie3 (@NizNellie3) September 23, 2025
The University of Michigan has announced that two professors who glorified the murder of Charlie Kirk, will NOT be fired.
Instead, the university will invest $50 MILLION taxpayer-dollars to "build a center dedicated to diversity and civil discourse." Sooo...DEI. pic.twitter.com/XrmjhCgnDk
One of the comments underneath: The Board of Trustees at UM is openly defying the federal government - we dare you to punish us. They get $1.24 Billion per year from the US Government, so the Dept. of Education and DOJ has leverage. Let's see what the Trump Team actually does.
We need to have a broader conversation around how and why our taxpayers help support universities at any level whatsoever. There may have been a time that was appropriate. That time is past.
We have too many of them, and they're not providing sufficient value to many of their students.
There is absolutely no reason for me, as a taxpayer, to be funding university research all over the country as brokered by some bureaucrats. If you can't find industry or private charitable funding, maybe your project isn't all that great, or you need to learn to sell your ideas.
There are a lot of benefits to basic research that doesn't always have an immediate commercial payoff. It might be useful for the state to find that. However, there are many things that are funded that have no payoff of any kind, commercial or otherwise, ever.
I think there was a time that was true. I believe that private research funding in the US has now taken the lead over public funding. And, bottom line, we pay way too much in taxes just to cover the social welfare net and the military. I don't need to also throw money into a blind pot for bureaucrats to distribute along with university wonks. I don't trust that it is, overall, being put to good use. Let the marketplace handle it.
I also don't think there's any reason, in this day and age, for taxpayers to supplement college tuition. It's grown way way way past inflation for way too long. Universities can work out student access without our help.
Don't you know that not one of the federal agencies who write the grants will EVER say, "we think the money we budgeted last year would be better spent elsewhere or returned to the taxpayers"!
As for federal tuition grants and loans, phase them out.
Robert Wilson said:D. C. Bear said:Robert Wilson said:Assassin said:Assassin said:🚨 BREAKING:
— NizNellie3 (@NizNellie3) September 23, 2025
The University of Michigan has announced that two professors who glorified the murder of Charlie Kirk, will NOT be fired.
Instead, the university will invest $50 MILLION taxpayer-dollars to "build a center dedicated to diversity and civil discourse." Sooo...DEI. pic.twitter.com/XrmjhCgnDk
One of the comments underneath: The Board of Trustees at UM is openly defying the federal government - we dare you to punish us. They get $1.24 Billion per year from the US Government, so the Dept. of Education and DOJ has leverage. Let's see what the Trump Team actually does.
We need to have a broader conversation around how and why our taxpayers help support universities at any level whatsoever. There may have been a time that was appropriate. That time is past.
We have too many of them, and they're not providing sufficient value to many of their students.
There is absolutely no reason for me, as a taxpayer, to be funding university research all over the country as brokered by some bureaucrats. If you can't find industry or private charitable funding, maybe your project isn't all that great, or you need to learn to sell your ideas.
There are a lot of benefits to basic research that doesn't always have an immediate commercial payoff. It might be useful for the state to find that. However, there are many things that are funded that have no payoff of any kind, commercial or otherwise, ever.
I think there was a time that was true. I believe that private research funding in the US has now taken the lead over public funding. And, bottom line, we pay way too much in taxes just to cover the social welfare net and the military. I don't need to also throw money into a blind pot for bureaucrats to distribute along with university wonks. I don't trust that it is, overall, being put to good use. Let the marketplace handle it.
I also don't think there's any reason, in this day and age, for taxpayers to supplement college tuition. It's grown way way way past inflation for way too long. Universities can work out student access without our help.
Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
.@Gavin_McInnes used to be friends with Jimmy Kimmel, and in the wake of the ABC late-night host’s suspension, McInnes blames his “woke” second wife for the funnyman’s downfall into shrill leftism.
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) September 21, 2025
"There’s pre-Molly and there’s post-Molly Jimmy Kimmel" pic.twitter.com/j0yJB5RItm
Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
It looks like the chili dog is at 7.6 million views.
D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
It looks like the chili dog is at 7.6 million views.
cowboycwr said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
It looks like the chili dog is at 7.6 million views.
And that doesn't include all the views on sites like this….
Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
Forest Bueller said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
Interesting.
1.6 million people that have literally no taste in "entertainment".
I would rather watch a WNBA game.
Back in the day All in the Family averaged 45 million for a while.
Forest Bueller said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
Interesting.
1.6 million people that have literally no taste in "entertainment".
Forest Bueller said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
Interesting.
1.6 million people that have literally no taste in "entertainment".
I would rather watch a WNBA game.
Sam Lowry said:Forest Bueller said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
Interesting.
1.6 million people that have literally no taste in "entertainment".
I'd be surprised if that many do have. Kimmel's total viewership is probably 5 to 8 million even though he's a mediocre talent at best. I will give him credit for at least being funnier than Colbert.
Assassin said:Forest Bueller said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
Interesting.
1.6 million people that have literally no taste in "entertainment".
I would rather watch a WNBA game.
Back in the day All in the Family averaged 45 million for a while.
"I would rather watch a WNBA Game." That's just cold, dude
Robert Wilson said:Assassin said:Forest Bueller said:Sam Lowry said:Assassin said:Jimmy Kimmel averages 126,000 views per episode.
— Tiffany Fong (@TiffanyFong_) September 22, 2025
Let’s see if my chili dog can get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. pic.twitter.com/O23DJN2vP5
1.6 million, according to Nielsen, not counting online views.
Interesting.
1.6 million people that have literally no taste in "entertainment".
I would rather watch a WNBA game.
Back in the day All in the Family averaged 45 million for a while.
"I would rather watch a WNBA Game." That's just cold, dude
If someone told me I had to watch Kimmel or wnba I'd just claw my eyes out.
