A new piece from Glenn Greenwald.
ADDED: I wrote this post on my iPad and let it sit for nearly 12 hours before noticing I'd written "Greenwood" for "Greenwald." I'm really sorry! I was done blogging for the day but wanted to get this last thing up, and I have a harder time seeing on the iPad, and then there's the autocorrection. In any event, "wald" means "woods," so it almost seems like a translation, like calling me "Oldhouse." Again, I'm sorry! I thought it was a good article, and I appreciate what Glenn has been doing lately, which is insisting on honesty from the press. Excerpt:The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: [it's not that] they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot without denying that there is any danger at all.
Note the word "riot." It was a riot — not a coup or an insurrection.
Perhaps the most significant blow to the maximalist insurrection/coup narrative took place inside the Senate on Thursday. Ever since January 6, those who were not referring to the riot as a “coup attempt” — as though the hundreds of protesters intended to overthrow the most powerful and militarized government in history — were required to refer to it instead as an “armed insurrection.” This formulation was crucial not only for maximizing fear levels about the Democrats’ adversaries but also, as I’ve documented previously, because declaring an “armed insurrection” empowers the state with virtually unlimited powers to act against the citizenry. Over and over, leading Democrats and their media allies repeated this phrase like some hypnotic mantra...
Posts
251 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 251 of 251---And no one except me, finds it bizarre, crazy, and scary. [rcocean]
Not so, as others have also posted, I see. But it is weird to see this apparent calm from everyone not a Democrat. Tremendous sense of frustration and helplessness even as that bizarre, quite the right word, tone prevails in most of the media that a normal world is unfolding relatively normally (beyond the Chinese virus).
There is nothing normal about what happened. It is the worst political fraud of our lifetimes. Yet it is also clearly a continuation of the preexisting trends -- the IRS politicization by Lois Lerner under Obama, the Russiagate fraud of Obama and the intelligence agencies, the impeachments, the Antifa-BLM orchestrated rioting, the shutdowns of society and our schools, and finally we are back to a stolen Presidential election.
If JFK's victory in 1960 was as fraudulent as Biden's, it did not work to his advantage in the end. But there were not all the other scheming machinations going on around that election as we have seen of the past eight, nine years. Trump's first election made it seem like elections would serve their Constitutional purpose to correct the course of government. Yet we seem to have no machinery with which to cope with such flagrant fraud as the overnight ballot-box stuffing we just went through this time around.
I think many millions of people are shellshocked and disbelieving. Something will torch that tinderbox, but we don't know what that might be yet.
YouTube and Twitter are private companies that are protected by the First Amendment from being forced to publish speech they don't want to publish. No "opposition voices have been removed from the press"...what on earth does that even mean? Trump supporters have only been curtailed from further attacks on the Capitol, they're free to peaceably assemble in any dumbass way they want...
Private companies that have monopolies working hand in glove with a political party. Any dispassionate observer would call this fascism.
“Bake the cake!” Twitter, “Bake the cake!” YouTube... Oh, that’s right, the government only compels private companies to violate their beliefs if it pushes the Democrat’s agenda.
"Trump supporters have only been curtailed from further attacks on the Capitol”
Right, this exaggerated rhetoric about “coups” and “armed insurrection” has been used to militarize the capitol and to deny freedom of assembly.
"YouTube and Twitter are private companies that are protected by the First Amendment from being forced to publish speech they don't want to publish."
-- That's incorrect. They are private companies, but they are common carriers and they are NOT publishers. Them not being publishers is key to their business models.
Not only that, but the idea of the First Amendment and freedom of speech means that we, as a country, believe in these concepts *not just when enforced at the point of the government's gun.* Freedom of Speech means even assholes can say asshole things on the public square without the mob being allowed to physically restrain and silence them. Freedom of Speech means that the heckler's veto and threats of preventing someone from making a living simply for saying things the majority disagree with should be frowned upon.
A country that simply says the government can't use force to shut you up, because the people will, does not really have a Freedom of Speech. This ridiculously narrow reading of Freedom of Speech is the type of reading that would allow a majority to persecute and silence a minority out of the public square.
Matt Sablan said...
"What on earth are you talking about? They were almost killed. No one unleashes a riot like that--against themselves!--all in the hope that it will somehow boomerang and benefit them politically."
-- They were in no physical danger. The rioters were stopped by a door and a single bullet was enough to deter them. If you believe that they were close to being killed, you need to re-evaluate your risk and threat analyses, because you're almost being killed right now as well.
*******************************
If "a single bullet" has to be fired to keep people out of danger, then those people were in danger. That's how bullets work. That's how danger works.
I'd like to hear back from you the next time security guards in your office have to suddenly bar the doors and remind you that the chairs in your conference room are bullet-proof and good for hiding behind. I'm sure that will seem like a totally not dangerous situation to you.
The entirety of Congress had to be rapidly evacuated, and were one hallway length away from being physically assaulted by a mob breaking through windows and beating every cop in sight with flagpoles and spraying them with bear spray. The mandated counting of electoral votes to determine our next president had to be stopped because of the MAGA mob. Over 300 people have been arrested for this violent assault on our nation's democracy. But yes, it was totally a safe situation.
None of the rioters carried firearms. Stop pretending that they did.
But I see the robot check is back, which I think is a hint.
Most of those arrested were milling around the building, there are pictures of dozens of them in one room staying within the velvet ropes, but if you want to portray them as some kind of ninja warriors who can kill with any weapon at hand thirsting for blood, I have to question your motives.
So, do you believe that since Trump was evacuated from the White House, we should have shut down DC and arrested everyone who sieged the White House? Why haven't we down a nation wide sweep for those people? People who were calling for "dragging Trump" from his bunker? What about all the people who attacked other federal buildings? Why is this the one event that you seem to be willing to unleash lethal force over when -- for years -- we've had more dangerous riots happening? Is it just because Congress is involved? If the riot had happened at night or while they weren't in session, would it have been ok, as per the idiot Garland?
Security did not need to fire on the person they killed was part of my point. The situation degraded because people like Pelosi and the Capitol Police leadership failed. Congress was evacuated, but there have been times where during violent entry into the Capitol they haven't been.
There was, I suppose, a chance that someone might have managed to breach through several barricades and rooms and reached someone in Congress... except no one did. No one was even armed, we've learned. There were no kill teams or zip tie assassins -- those were lies.
The more we've learned, the more clear it is that there was no real plan to harm Congress, and if Congress and the Capitol Police had been remotely competent in setting up a perimeter and accepting help from Trump *none of this would have happened.*
My biggest takeaway from this debate is that the trolls here don’t give a flying fuck if standards designed to ensure free and fair elections are in place.
---beating every cop in sight with flagpoles and spraying them with bear spray
Strangely, they forgot their guns. And stopped to chat with security guards along the way. Some of whom were perfectly willing to let them in without apparent fear of this deadly assault you're conjuring up.
You're projecting from what the Democrats had planned election night if they didn't get quite enough of the preprinted ballots into the count.
Matt Sablan said...
"YouTube and Twitter are private companies that are protected by the First Amendment from being forced to publish speech they don't want to publish."
-- That's incorrect. They are private companies, but they are common carriers and they are NOT publishers. Them not being publishers is key to their business models.
******************************
Regardless, they are not required to carry speech they don't want to. They have terms of service, and the terms of service were violated by Trump, end of story. The 1st amendment prevents the government from prohibiting freedom of speech or of the press (for the most part). It has nothing to do with private companies and how they enforce their terms of service.
98% of conservatives have no idea what q-anon is.
Democrats know all about it by watching Maddow.
Now, I'm not saying "There was no violence!" I'm saying we need to realistically assess what the threat was and why it happened. This violence was nowhere near the scale of what happened in the 2017 Inauguration Riots, for example. It's still bad, and it probably reached the level of bad where it's all pretty much moot, but pretending that there were expert kill teams deployed to Congress who were foiled because Congress walked away quickly and some doors were locked, and the teams there to murder Congress were deterred when opposing forces fired on an unarmed rioter who was clearly not part of the murder squad is a fantastical read of what happened that day.
There was a riot; there was not a coup.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/03/tie-a-presidential-inauguration-support-ribbon.php
Matt Sablan said...
So, do you believe that since Trump was evacuated from the White House, we should have shut down DC and arrested everyone who sieged the White House?
******************************
The White House was breached by a violent mob of hundreds? Oh, when did this happen, do go on...
Matt Sablan said...
Security did not need to fire on the person they killed was part of my point.
***************************
Actually, it seemed like your original point was that a "single bullet" was necessary in order to stop the mob from going any further.
"Regardless, they are not required to carry speech they don't want to. They have terms of service, and the terms of service were violated by Trump, end of story."
-- A: They actually are. That's part of being a platform and not a publisher. They're a common carrier; they are literally required to serve customers in a neutral fashion (at least, if they were treated the way the law SHOULD treat them.)
B: If Trump violated the terms of service, then lots, and lots, and lots of others have too -- from Kamala Harris onward and across the political spectrum. As I've said since the start, if Twitter and the other Social Media Platforms want to enforce their rules evenly, have at it. But, if they're going to selective enforce their rules, then screw them: They're a publisher, and not a common carrier, and therefore should be held liable for what they publish. For example, the man who's life was ruined, lost his job, and was forced to move due to death threats received when posters on Twitter falsely identified him as being at the riot? Twitter should be paying out millions to that guy -- if they're a publisher and not a platform.
I'm fine with the results of saying Twitter et al are publishers and can choose what they publish. I'm not fine with the left using a motte and bailey defense where they're two things at once, and the defense to their bad actions changes based on what thing they need to be in that instant.
I don't care what the Left calls it, it/they LIE.
The 'mob' was stopped at the door and being allowed to continue pushing through by the security on her side of the door.
Security *shot through their barricade and other people* to hit their target... if they were even shooting at her. Note: Behind her were people NOT trying to break into that room, including additional security people who were letting her do what she was doing. That shot was completely unnecessary. If you think that noting a single bullet deterred what you're characterizing as an armed mob intent on a coup of the government, and you can't understand the obvious sarcasm involved in stating some closed doors and a single shot deterred them, that's really a flaw in the text format and reading comprehension.
Matt Sablan said...
"What's the point of arguing with people in bad faith?"
Arturo is a liar. It's a waste of time arguing with liars.
""I figure Glenn Greenwood has to be one of these people here."
LOL"
I am Glenn Greenwood.
-- Corey Booker
Arguing with trolls, I see. Have a nice day.
Anyone who disagrees with Michael K is a troll.
-- A: They actually are. That's part of being a platform and not a publisher. They're a common carrier; they are literally required to serve customers in a neutral fashion (at least, if they were treated the way the law SHOULD treat them.)
Yes.
I know I say it over and over, but what if AT&T decided you couldn't get cell phone service from them because you had looked at the wrong website on their internet provider? Would this be ok with people?
Or if they deemed they didn't like the texts you were sending. Could they just stop sending out your texts?
Leftwing provocateurs were at the Capitol that day. john Sullivan was one. just one.
that the head of the FBI denies ANY antifa or leftwing actors were there that day - is a blatant lie. Also - Wray refuses to tell the truth about how officer Brian Sicknick died.
Matt Sablan said...
The 'mob' was stopped at the door and being allowed to continue pushing through by the security on her side of the door.
Security *shot through their barricade and other people* to hit their target... if they were even shooting at her. Note: Behind her were people NOT trying to break into that room, including additional security people who were letting her do what she was doing. That shot was completely unnecessary. If you think that noting a single bullet deterred what you're characterizing as an armed mob intent on a coup of the government, and you can't understand the obvious sarcasm involved in stating some closed doors and a single shot deterred them, that's really a flaw in the text format and reading comprehension.
3/6/21, 9:52 AM
I am not sure which planet you are living on, but on the planet I am living on Ashli Babbitt was smashing through a barricaded window at the very moment she was shot. She was at the front of the mob: there were no people "shot through" when she was taken down. Have you actually watched the video, or are you just repeating what other MAGAs have told you about what happened?
You realize bullets can go through things they hit, right? Every one behind or near her (including the other security personnel) were in the line of fire.
Matt Sablan said...
"Regardless, they are not required to carry speech they don't want to. They have terms of service, and the terms of service were violated by Trump, end of story."
-- A: They actually are. That's part of being a platform and not a publisher. They're a common carrier; they are literally required to serve customers in a neutral fashion (at least, if they were treated the way the law SHOULD treat them.)
B: If Trump violated the terms of service, then lots, and lots, and lots of others have too -- from Kamala Harris onward and across the political spectrum. As I've said since the start, if Twitter and the other Social Media Platforms want to enforce their rules evenly, have at it. But, if they're going to selective enforce their rules, then screw them: They're a publisher, and not a common carrier, and therefore should be held liable for what they publish. For example, the man who's life was ruined, lost his job, and was forced to move due to death threats received when posters on Twitter falsely identified him as being at the riot? Twitter should be paying out millions to that guy -- if they're a publisher and not a platform.
I'm fine with the results of saying Twitter et al are publishers and can choose what they publish. I'm not fine with the left using a motte and bailey defense where they're two things at once, and the defense to their bad actions changes based on what thing they need to be in that instant.
*********************************
Trump violated their Terms of Service for many years, culminating in inciting a mob that got 5 people killed and stopped a crucial democratic proceeding in our nation's capitol, in his own interest. If there was any uneven enforcement of their terms, it was that they were far too lenient on him for far too long.
Also, without knowing who took the shot, we can't tell if the shooter was the person closest to the door [unlikely] or firing from behind the other security personnel ahead of him. Shooting from behind people, down the corridor, where your team mates are positioned further forward, is a risky shot. The video I saw is kind of sad, as one guy yells "Hey, where are the flashbangs?" at the shooters, because they were operating under the assumption they'd be treated like other rioters, and not met with immediate deadly force. Poor guy. Didn't realize that we only use non-lethals against people trying to breach the White House to drag Trump out of his bunker.
Matt Sablan said...
You realize bullets can go through things they hit, right? Every one behind or near her (including the other security personnel) were in the line of fire.
********************************
No, you wrote something different: "Security *shot through their barricade and other people* to hit their target...". You said nothing about people behind her. In any event, she was clearly at the front of the mob, smashing her way through the window because the door was locked and barricaded. In the world I live in, a locked door means stop. A barricaded door means holy hell, what am I doing? And a cop pointing a gun at me means I stop what I'm doing and get on the ground. The cop had every right to shoot when she started smashing her way in. It's not even a close call.
---Trump violated their Terms of Service for many years, culminating in inciting a mob that got 5 people killed and stopped a crucial democratic proceeding in our nation's capitol, in his own interest. If there was any uneven enforcement of their terms, it was that they were far too lenient on him for far too long.
That is so beautiful in its own weird way.
"In any event, she was clearly at the front of the mob, smashing her way through the window because the door was locked and barricaded. In the world I live in, a locked door means stop. A barricaded door means holy hell, what am I doing? And a cop pointing a gun at me means I stop what I'm doing and get on the ground. The cop had every right to shoot when she started smashing her way in. It's not even a close call."
-- Unfortunately, for the last several years, all of those impediments actually mean "please think about going further... Ok, don't come further. Wait, wait, wait, let's try and disperse you with nonlethals first." Immediate, deadly, lethal force has not been used against any other rioter in any other riot for the last several years. There is no rational reason for the people at that door to assume that the rules of engagement had suddenly changed; the people who tried to breach the White House weren't gunned down. The people throwing firebombs at police in New York? Got a plea deal, not a bullet.
If you want security to start using lethal force against rioters and protesters, come out and state that. But, remember: That lethal force will be used against *all rioters and protesters.*
It was all a TOS violation, his Presidency. Love it.
For the poor people on Fox who can't find anything about Q here is a link :https://qposts.online
Roesch: That list seems to end in December 2020.
"If a BLM or other left-wing protester had started smashing through the window of the White House, you'd better believe I'd be fully on board with them receiving lethal force in response."
-- That is a neat response to not the question I asked. Should security at the White House have opened fire on the people trying to breach it? Some made it through or to the barricades! Should the forces that were protecting federal buildings have responded with lethal force after the first firebomb or attempt to blind them with lasers?
If you're fine with shooting Babbitt, you *have* to be fine with those security people unloading on the rioters there. If you make some excuse for why the people at the front of the White House assault aren't dead, or why the guard and police forces didn't push out of federal buildings leaving violent insurrectionists dead on the street, then no. You just wanted to see someone with different politics than you suffer.
If Ashli Babbitt's shooting is justified, there should be and will be a lot more dead protesters once other police and security forces realize that lethal force is now allowed.
Matt Sablan said...
"If a BLM or other left-wing protester had started smashing through the window of the White House, you'd better believe I'd be fully on board with them receiving lethal force in response."
-- That is a neat response to not the question I asked. Should security at the White House have opened fire on the people trying to breach it? Some made it through or to the barricades! Should the forces that were protecting federal buildings have responded with lethal force after the first firebomb or attempt to blind them with lasers?
If you're fine with shooting Babbitt, you *have* to be fine with those security people unloading on the rioters there. If you make some excuse for why the people at the front of the White House assault aren't dead, or why the guard and police forces didn't push out of federal buildings leaving violent insurrectionists dead on the street, then no. You just wanted to see someone with different politics than you suffer.
If Ashli Babbitt's shooting is justified, there should be and will be a lot more dead protesters once other police and security forces realize that lethal force is now allowed.
*********************************
You sound awfully sad that a lot of lefties aren't dead in the streets right now. But yes, it's me who wants to see people with different politics suffer. Right.
I don't want to see anyone on either side of the political aisle get killed. Of course I don't. But if someone storms the Capitol and starts smashing through a barricaded door while a cop is pointing a pistol at their face, there's not much anyone can do to help someone that violent and reckless.
I also love how you refuse to take yes for an answer. I'm consistent in my position on the use of lethal force, so now you're demanding more, because you don't know what to do with that kind of consistency.
Note: I'm the one saying that the woman SHOULD NOT have been shot. I don't see how you draw the line from that to: Clearly, he wants MORE PEOPLE shot.
If you're so consistent, then you agree that the people who attacked the White House and other federal properties should have been shot too, right?
You're claiming to be consistent, but you sure aren't seeming to just accept the logical conclusion of your consistency. Instead, you're trying to create some special corner case that lets this specific shooting be allowable, but lets you say, "but all those other places that my logical allowing of this shooting would go -- it won't."
Matt Sablan said...
Note: I'm the one saying that the woman SHOULD NOT have been shot. I don't see how you draw the line from that to: Clearly, he wants MORE PEOPLE shot.
If you're so consistent, then you agree that the people who attacked the White House and other federal properties should have been shot too, right?
You're claiming to be consistent, but you sure aren't seeming to just accept the logical conclusion of your consistency. Instead, you're trying to create some special corner case that lets this specific shooting be allowable, but lets you say, "but all those other places that my logical allowing of this shooting would go -- it won't."
********************************
Every shooting is in the context of what specifically is happening at that moment. One can't implement a blanket "shoot them all" policy, and I think we both agree that would be abhorrent if they had, no matter who the protesters were.
In the specific context of having already breached a federal building where dozens of police are being viciously beaten by a mob of hundreds, and one of the assailants is now smashing her way through the window of a locked, barricaded door, while a cop is standing on the other side pointing a gun at her, and only a hallway separates her and the cop from many members of Congress, then it doesn't matter whether it is a right-wing or left-wing protester. The use of lethal force is fully justified.
But you're demanding that I apply the same response to different situations, and I'm not going to do that. Each shooting has its own context. Like I said, if a left wing version of Ashli Babbitt did the same thing inside the White House, the use of force would be totally justified. We would not be having any debate about this at all. "Antifa protester shot dead while smashing her way into the Oval Office, just minutes after Trump and White House staff forcibly evacuated." There would be no debate about it.
Freder's busy this morning.
Let us not forget that McCarthysim is a term that encompasses activities that had nothing to do with 'Tail Gunner Joe' McCarthy, the Senator. The House UnAmerican Activities Committee are the ones that relentlessly pursued a 'Communist' agenda and pressed for a black list - and that committee was dominated by Democrats.
It's interesting that your standard is basically "when I want it to, but I'll justify it after the fact." We're a nation of rules and laws; people need to know what the rules and laws are to know what behavior is allowable and what will be stopped at what level of force. The people with Ashli Babbitt thought they had not reached the lethal force level *because for years they'd seen people doing what they considered the exact same thing be met with no or non-lethal force.*
The wishy washy "oh, well, of course she should have been shot, but not these other people because the situations are nuanced and different" isn't a standard. It's a dodge.
Your standard STILL doesn't justify the use of non-lethals on people using lethal weapons against security personnel at Federal Buildings or breaching the White House after the President had to be evacuated because those sieging the White House called for him to be dragged out from his bunker and shot. If anything, looking at your standards, and what happened there, those people were just as much valid targets for lethal force.
Unless you think "people can only have lethal force used against them if they're in a building. Outside, lethal force isn't allowed," which is maybe the differentiation you're trying to use to square the circle of why some rioters get to attack and maim security personnel and others don't.
I think many millions of people are shellshocked and disbelieving. Something will torch that tinderbox, but we don't know what that might be yet.
The Dems are counting on it and hope it will be something they can use to justify a permanent placement of the Praetorian Gaurd they have set up. Something they can use to round up and punish the "domestic terrorists" as an example to their political opponents. It is such a needed part of the process that they will find a way to provoke it if it doesn't materialize on it's own. The ultimate goal here is permanent power. Same as any despots dream come true throughout history.
To define the generic they I mean Pelosi, Schumer, Durbin and the toadies such as Schiff, Swalwell and others.
The Dems are counting on it and hope it will be something they can use to justify a permanent placement of the Praetorian Gaurd they have set up.
Exactly, pacwest! That's why resistance is a better plan than riots and insurrection.
Matt Sablan said...
It's interesting that your standard is basically "when I want it to, but I'll justify it after the fact." We're a nation of rules and laws; people need to know what the rules and laws are to know what behavior is allowable and what will be stopped at what level of force. The people with Ashli Babbitt thought they had not reached the lethal force level *because for years they'd seen people doing what they considered the exact same thing be met with no or non-lethal force.*
***************************
I'm pretty sure the average person understands the rule that smashing your way through the window of a barricaded door in a federal building while a cop points a gun at you might easily get you killed. But maybe you hang out with different people who think that's a normal thing to do.
"what they considered"...lol, boy that phrase is doing SO much work there.
Yes, I do think there is an escalation of danger once the rioters are actually inside the building they were first attempting to breach. It means the first stage of the attack was carried out successfully. Whole new ballgame. Instead of keeping them out, now you have to push them out. Now they're inside your perimeter. Security is now a much more difficult and dangerous task. This is called common sense.
The Dems are counting on it and hope it will be something they can use to justify a permanent placement of the Praetorian Gaurd they have set up
Yes, abort the baby, but don't leave it on a steel slab to cry itself to death, which is not only wicked, but truly evil. Not even the advocates and activists for the final solution left their victims to writhe in hopeless pain.
and if Congress and the Capitol Police had been remotely competent in setting up a perimeter and accepting help from Trump *none of this would have happened
The Katrina Controversy. The Libyan Liability. The Charlottesville Concession.
that would allow a majority to persecute and silence a minority out of the public square.
The democratic/dictatorial duality is why the Founders opted for a constitutional republic.
That said, Democrats need to lose their Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic ("ethical") religion. They won't. The majority won't. As long as it remains politically congruent, they won't, and we are on a progressive path and grade.
Trump supporters were trying to prevent--through violence--the legal counting of votes that would ensure Trump's removal as president. Quit playing games.
Quit lying.
Jim at said...
Trump supporters were trying to prevent--through violence--the legal counting of votes that would ensure Trump's removal as president. Quit playing games.
Quit lying.
**************************
Point out a single lie in what I wrote. You can't.
Glenn Greenwald gets a steady stream of shit from progressives on twitter, for supposedly defending Trump, for appearing on Tucker Carlson. A lot of it is personal and insulting, and a lot of it comes from blue checks. I admire his relentless informed skepticism and challenging of bullshit, and I wouldn't quite call him a cheerful warrior because he clearly gets pissed, he handles himself well in the arena.
I'm pretty sure the average person understands the rule that smashing your way through the window of a barricaded door in a federal building while a cop points a gun at you might easily get you killed. But maybe you hang out with different people who think that's a normal thing to do.
Well at least we have new rules of engagement. "Shot to kill" those assaulting government buildings. I have a feeling the trial outcome in Minneapolis soon, is going to agitate a few people that think they have immunity to riot, and assault govt persons and structures.
"I have a feeling the trial outcome in Minneapolis soon, is going to agitate a few people that think they have immunity to riot, and assault govt persons and structures."
That'll be different. Because reasons.
Post a Comment