Terry Crews, photographed Nov. 2017. Billy &amp; Hells for TIME When dozens of women came forward with sexual assault and harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein—who has continued to deny all allegations of non-consensual sex—actor Terry Crews noticed that some people on Twitter were skeptical. Crews knows from personal experience how hard it is to experience harassment and muster the courage to speak out: He says he was groped by William Morris Endeavor agent Adam Venit at an industry event in front of his wife. The agency said they suspended and demoted Venit, who declined to comment for this article. He has since returned to work. Crews is now suing Venit and the agency for sexual assault. Crews—who was recognized as one of the Silence Breakers, TIME’s Person of the Year—realized that men had a responsibility to lend credence and support to these women’s claims. Almost without thinking through the consequences, Crews tweeted out his own story; in his viral series of tweets, he became one of the first men to join the chorus of women speaking out about harassment. Crews spoke to TIME about the reception to his story and why it’s imperative that men advocate for women’s rights. What was the moment you decided to speak out about what happened to you? I’d actually just read a comment someone made on Twitter about one of Weinstein’s accusers. It went something like: She’s just looking for attention and a payday. It really affected me. I couldn’t stop thinking about it. I remember going to my phone and I started writing. And I couldn’t stop. What it became was this sixteen-tweet missive from me. I just remember having to say what I felt. I was really angry because these women were being discounted. These women were being discarded. Their pain was just—it was nothing. I wanted to join in. I wanted to say something. I wanted to support. But I did have to let these women know they weren’t alone. And that I understood. My whole mission was to give them strength. Don’t accept the shame that people are giving you. Because that’s what it was. They were being shamed. They were being victimized again. I just couldn’t stand for it. Watch: Why the Silence Breakers Are the 2017 Person of the Year Mute Current Time 0:00 / Duration Time 0:00 Loaded: 0% 0:00 Progress: 0% 0:00 Progress: 0% Stream TypeLIVE Remaining Time -0:00 Playback Rate 1 Chapters Descriptions Subtitles Captions Audio Track This is a modal window. Caption Settings Dialog Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. TextColorWhiteTransparencyOpaqueBackgroundColorBlackTransparencyOpaqueWindowColorBlackTransparencyTransparent Font Size50% Text Edge StyleNone Font FamilyProportional Sans-Serif What was the reaction like? In a matter of hours it had become the #1 trending topic on Twitter. And I had a realization: I didn’t check with my wife, I didn’t check with my publicist, I didn’t check with anybody. I just did it. But at that moment, I was free. Until men stand up and say, “This harassment, this abuse, these assaults are wrong,” nothing will change. If I was silent, it would mean I’m consenting to all of it. I always have felt women have been able to take care of themselves, 100%. But men need to hold other men accountable. That’s my thing. I came up in the cult of masculinity, in football and the sports world and entertainment. You’re in places and guys are saying the wildest thing. People need to be called on that. You need to be held accountable for the things you say, the things you do. What it came from is literally a belief that as a man you are more valuable than a woman. The reason I have the authority to say it is because I was like it. I truly believed I was more valuable than my wife and kids. Until I had a major paradigm shift in my own life—it was like I hit rock bottom in order for me to see that I had it all wrong. I’m here to tell you it’s not your fault. It’s not. What happened to me was a prime example. People were saying, “You should have beat him up.” I’m like, “Why is no one questioning him?” No one questions the predator. The person who is doing the harassment doesn’t even get a question. You know why? Because they just expect it. And I said, “No more.” Why are you questioning the victim here? Let’s flip it. What would you say to people who think this is becoming a witch hunt? Hollywood was so far into the fact that everyone thought this behavior is normal. It needs to swing all the way back. What we need is a reset. People say, “Oh, it’s a witch hunt. People could lie.” You know what? First of all, the thread of that is going to keep people right. We need to know you can’t do it. If it’s not a witch, it’s a witch hunt. If there are actual witches there, we need to stop them. I have people coming to me saying, “Hey, man. You could ruin this guy’s life.” Very clever. That’s a very clever thing to say. But he ruined it when he did it. All these people need to be disciplined into knowing what is acceptable and what isn’t. The only way to do that is by holding people accountable every time. This is something that gives my life meaning. There’s no reason why—why should I be the guy to survive Flint, Michigan; survive forty-nine years on this Earth; married twenty-eight years with five kids, the whole thing—and then I just sit in my big house and relax. This gives my life meaning. Now I know why I was put here. Let me tell you—the guy who messed with me messed with the wrong guy. Is Hollywood a microcosm for how power is imbalanced in the rest of the world? I believe that. It is in every field, in every business, in sports, in politics. It’s bipartisan. It’s not Democratic, it’s not Republican, it’s not Russian, it’s not American, it’s not black, it’s not white. Because I am an African-American man, I’ve been just as vocal about the abuses in my own community. The pimp culture, where guys are praised for having two or three girls. I’ve been to the rally for civil rights, and they will look at a woman and say, “Bitch, sit down.” And you’re like, “Wait a minute—this is civil rights here.” When it’s like, as a black man, I’m equal to a white man, but they don’t believe that a man is equal to a woman. Self-defeating. Self-destructive. How are you going to get justice, and you aren’t even treating the women in your circle with justice? If you’re a Democrat, you can’t gloss over your own problems of the people in your party. If you’re a Republican, you can’t gloss over those problems in your party. If you’re American, you can’t say just because I’m an American, let’s gloss over that stuff. And sometimes you’ve got to be willing to walk alone. I get most of my courage from my wife. When I went through my trauma, she was right there with me. I’m very thankful to have a wise woman on my team. This interview has been edited and condensed. Answer: layer
The military taught me at an early age that one must know their enemy. This adage does not simply pertain to combat either. In all facets of your life, you must always endeavor to see things from the perspective of others. Not only does this allow you to empathize with them, but it also shows you the way to gain the tactical advantage. The greatest pundit of this would have to be Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese warlord who wrote the book The Art of War. This book is one of the best books on strategy ever written. This strategy goes far beyond the confines of combat, however. He spends a great deal of time discussing how war is mostly a mental game, explaining that force is simply one facet within an expansive set of options. One of my favorite quotes is, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” I do this very well. In fact, I do it too well. Just ask my wife. I know how I argue and I know how she argues, and I use this knowledge to my advantage every time. It is not intentional at this point, just something that has been ingrained into me. So at the end of the day, I can respect an adversary who is capable of truly manipulating a situation to gain the psychological advantage. It is for this reason that I must tip my hat to the Democratic party as a whole. I try very hard to be honest regardless of which side of the political aisle you may be on. When someone does something wrong, I will call them out for it. Typically, this is very easy to do with the Democrats, as virtually everything about their platform goes against what I believe the Constitution stands for. With that being said, I must also recognize when my enemy is gaining the advantage through manipulation; while I may not agree with their methods, I have to respect and be impressed with their results. Consider this—the Democrats have for the past eight years seen a huge loss in political power. According to Fox News, the total loss of Democrat-held elected positions as of December 2016 was 1,042. In fact, during the Obama reign, they went from 55 to 46 Senate seats and from 256 to 194 House seats at the federal level. Things didn’t improve at the state level, with the number of Democratic governors going from 28 to 16 and a total loss of 958 legislative seats. No compatible source was found for this video. There is only one way to look at these numbers—a complete and total repudiation of liberal policies and beliefs. What made this even funnier at the time was how the Democrats then doubled down on their divisiveness. A great example is when Sally Brown, DNC Chair hopeful, stated that, “My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt…We have to teach [others] how to communicate, how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white.” Or even when Howard Dean said that hate speech wasn’t protected speech. My favorite, though, was when Tom Perez, Democratic National Committee chair, said that if you wanted to be a Democrat, you had to be pro-choice. However, what was originally funny to me quickly curdled into shock. The problem is that the Democrats have something going for them that those on the other side simply don’t seem to be able to do. They know their enemy. They know how to manipulate the Republicans in office to give the left everything they want. I would never have believed that this was possible. The Republicans own both houses of Congress and had the overwhelming support of the American people. They were elected into office to enact the items that they ran on: defunding planned parenthood, repealing Obamacare, enacting tax reform, and building a wall. What did they accomplish out of that? Nothing! To make it even worse, they showed their incompetence by releasing Obamacare version 2.0. How is it possible for a party to have the majority control at both the state and national levels and yet not be able to enact the very legislation that it ran on? The answer to that is the Democratic party. Not only were they able to keep the Republicans from moving on their platform, they now get to pass the buck on the failure of Obamacare to the Republicans. Now, in a continuing show of their exceptional ability to control the government even when not in power, they have managed to have special council appointed to look into the Russian involvement in the election cycle. This ensures that even though there has been no evidence to suggest that the Trump administration did anything illegal, the question remains front and center over his presidency. They were even able to avoid the same scrutiny within their own party, where there were a plethora of potentially illegal actions that were swept under the rug. I hate to say it, but my hat is off to you, Democratic party. You have managed to ensure the catastrophic collapse of the party who won control of the country due to your failed policies. So how is it possible that they were able to do this? The answer is simply that they actually believe in their cause. This has both helped and hurt them. Wanting an America with less freedom and constricted liberties does not sell well. At the end of the day, there is only so much crazy talk the populace can endure without finally shutting you down. However, when you truly believe in your cause, the elected posts are secondary to what your message is. This is not true for the Republicans, who clearly covet power over the interest of the country. They are so worried about keeping their control that they would turn on their own principals to protect themselves. Knowing this allows the left to continue to move their position and policies forward, even when not in power, and the right is doing the same thing that they always do. They are sitting by and watching out of fear that they will be blamed. The typical Republican politician is clearly not capable of real leadership. Real leadership inspires those around them and rallies them under a single banner. The sad thing is that in this case, this was the banner that the American people elected their officials to turn into reality. If the Republicans do not figure this out quickly, they are setting themselves up for more than just a loss. They are looking at a complete shakeup of their party. Maybe that is what is needed, though. Maybe this is actually for the best. I remember right before retiring telling my son that there comes a point in every career when you are no longer able to bend and adapt. You have grown too complacent in your ways and view new ideas and thoughts as a threat to your existence. It is at this point that you have become the dinosaur. I am pretty sure that at this point, what the party needs is an extinction-level event, and the Democrats are more than willing to lead us to that well. Answer: daddy
Souvenirs from this week's Republican National Convention in Cleveland took no prisoners. From Trump bumper stickers that call Clinton the B-word (wow) to a poster depicting Clinton in dominatrix gear (double wow) to Trump- and Clinton-themed condoms (triple wow), the swag was as surreal and distasteful as this historic election has been — and that's saying something. Photos by Steve Truesdell. Answer: layer
Here’s one thing we can all say for certain regarding the latest twist of the Hillary Clinton email scandal: James Comey, who was once regarded as the Eliot Ness of law enforcement, a modern day straight-shooter impenetrable to political pressure, will instead leave the office of FBI chief as something closer to Inspector Clouseau. Don’t take my word for it; that’s the assessment of just about every law enforcement official, both former and present, I spoke to in the hours following his bizarre decision on Friday to reopen the case on the legality of Hillary Clinton’s email server, just days before the Nov 8 presidential election. It was bizarre, these people tell me, because the whole sordid Hillary Clinton email saga should never have gotten this far; Comey launched an investigation that developed far more evidence than anyone in law enforcement ever believed existed that Hillary Clinton broke the laws involving the receipt of sensitive government documents over an easily hacked private email server while she was President Obama’s secretary of state. My sources in law enforcement were pretty convinced Comey would do the right thing and recommend charges to the Obama Justice Department, despite its political consequence, because the evidence was there and Comey was supposed to be so non political. He was a Republican appointed by Democrat Barack Obama to run a quasi independent investigative arm of the DOJ because he had a fierce independent streak. He famously brought white-collar cases during the pro-business Bush Administration as the US Attorney for the Southern District. Later in a senior position in the Bush DOJ, he refused to approve aspects of the government's domestic surveillance program. But there appears to be limits to Comey's independence, these same people now concede. In July, Comey came up with an odd excuse for not recommending criminal charges against Clinton: He couldn’t develop enough evidence that Clinton intended to break the law under the standard of “gross negligence.” It was such an odd set rationale that Comey laid out for not bringing that case that most people listening to him at first thought he was laying out his reasoning to bring charges, as he explained one reckless move after another from Clinton in establishing the private server and private emails for handing all her government business. Indeed he initially laid out such a convincingly damning case against Clinton that markets began to crash for much of Comey’s tortured remarks as investors initially came to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton would be indicted and someone as crazy as Donald Trump could become president. That didn’t happen, of course, as Comey would explain -- and the markets that day recovered as he announced how Hillary Clinton may have done something criminal even if she never intended to do it and as a result he was giving her pass. Note to reader: Markets will take criminal over crazy any day of the week. But that wasn't the sentiment inside the FBI, where according to my law enforcement sources, a near mutiny broke out among career agents who believe there was plenty of evidence pointing to Clinton's gross negligence that Comey initially said never existed, and that their boss caved to political pressure from the Obama DOJ. Recall, Attorney General Loretta Lynch just had a private meeting with former president and possible first husband Bill Clinton just days before Comey handed in his verdict, which added to the fetid smell of the FBI chief's decision. Then there was the evidence: Remember, Clinton has never given much of a rationale for using only a private email account via her own server to send and receive state department related emails other than its convenience, which should never outweigh national security. Meanwhile, career agents argued her intent was inherent in simple creation of the private email server and exclusive use of a private email is supposed to be verboten under various laws including the Espionage Act. Her supporters point out that others like Bush Administration Secretary of State Colin Powell used a private email account, but that omits the fact that Powell’s email was from a computer he kept at the state department and he used it before the document laws were beefed up post 9-11. He also didn’t go through the process of creating his own easily hacked private server. Another difference: Clinton used her private account exclusively, and Powell didn’t. That’s probably because Powell didn’t have a reason to have a private server that he could control and erase its contents; He didn’t have a private charity that would do business with the federal government and would become a private enrichment vehicle, as Hillary and her former-president husband Bill have in the form of the Clinton Foundation. Now we have Comey possibly looking to make amends with his troops, possibly looking to cover his rear end, definitely looking incompetent, because of all people Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former Congressman, and soon-to-be ex husband of Hillary Clinton confident, Huma Abedin. FBI agents, investigating Weiner’s alleged depravity with an underage girl, stumbled across some more Hillary-related emails from Abedin, and as we learned Friday an investigation that was "closed" is now suddenly open. I say closed in quotes to underscore the murkiness of FBI investigative procedures. Cases are rarely officially closed and even when they are the bureau will leave the door open that additional information would re-ignite their efforts. If you think this story could get any more surreal consider the following: law enforcement sources tell Fox Business that Weiner could soon cooperate with the Feds, and that can’t be good news for his wife or her boss. (an attorney for Anthony Weiner tells Fox News there is no cooperation agreement in place) Weiner, I am told, was miffed at the Clinton’s for keeping him away from the campaign before his latest sexting episode. Now facing a possible prison term for alleged dealings with an underage girl he has even more incentive to cooperate against his soon-to-be ex-wife and the Clintons. I can't tell you whether the new emails will reach Comey's standard for gross negligence, but that's really besides the point. The country could have been spared this spectacle if he had just done the right thing in July and recommended a charge against Clinton. Then the Democrats could have regrouped and given the nomination to Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden or someone who doesn't stand a chance of being indicted or impeached if elected. Yes if Hillary Clinton manages to win, she will be a sitting duck for every GOP investigative committee, particularly as the odds grow the Republicans will now keep the House and possibly the Senate. If you thought the last eight years were contentious, you ain't seen nothing yet. Thank you, James Comey. Answer: daddy
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough expressed wariness on Thursday morning about the timing and source of the recent slew of sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump. The “Morning Joe” host speculated that allegations by multiple women in publications such as People magazine, The New York Times, BuzzFeed, and the Palm Beach Post may have been coordinated by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He argued that sexual assault victims would have had months to come forward with allegations, and cited Trump’s inflammatory comments about Fox News host Megyn Kelly as a potential “triggering event.” . @JoeNBC on new accusations against Trump: I’m sceptical about the *timing*… Talk about an October surprise. https://t.co/lQ2gP5QD99 — Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) October 13, 2016 “I’m talking about the timing of all of this dropping, talk about an October surprise,” Scarborough said. “There have been 1,000 triggering events that would have made sense. If I had been sexually harassed by this man, the Megyn Kelly story would have given me and opportunity.” He added: “There have been 1,000 reports of this already. I’m just asking why all the sudden this stuff is dropping in October. Perhaps it’s all innocent. Perhaps there’s no oppo drop. Perhaps it’s not coordinated.” The allegations come after a 2005 video was released on Friday showing the Republican presidential nominee boasting about kissing and forcing himself on women without their permission. During the second presidential debate, Trump denied that he ever sexually assaulted women. The Trump campaign is already pushing back against the allegations. Trump’s attorneys sent a letter to the New York Times early Thursday morning denying the allegations and threatening to sue the paper for defamation if the paper didn’t issue a retraction. The real-estate magnate also took to Twitter to defend himself. The phoney story in the failing @nytimes is a TOTAL FABRICATION. Written by same people as last discredited story on woman. WATCH! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2016 Why didn’t the writer of the twelve year old article in People Magazine mention the “incident” in her story. Because it did not happen! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 13, 2016 Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Answer: layer
Many liberal talking heads have made a big deal out of the supposed demographic wave facing Republicans and conservatives as the nation morphs into a more diverse population. Growth rates amongst minorities have begun to exceed those of whites. The narrative goes like this — as the white, European-based population diminishes, America will become less conservative and more socialist, demanding more and more free stuff. The rich will just have to pay for it — in other words, the takers will get more from the makers. While the demographic trend may be true, the pre-conceived outcome is anything but. I’m not one to forecast a ‘conservative century’, but I will say the notion that the up-and-coming generation largely believes in socialism is a falsehood. First of all, many minority groups have historically held conservative values. Although this trend has diminished to some extent, due to the brainwashing and self-imposed victimization of minority youth, it has not gone away entirely. Hispanics go to church; they believe in hard work. I’ve know many Hispanic businessmen and families who are angry at the open border crowd pushing for illegal immigration and benefits for millions of undocumented immigrants. They did not go through the process legally as many immigrants have and this annoys successful minority entrepreneurs. There is also the fact that ‘Obamanomics’ and social welfare policies did nothing to help the minority groups he promised to assist. Aside from increasing dependency on government, every other statistic for prosperity for minorities went down. No compatible source was found for this video. Many minorities are starting to see this. I recently overheard one minority veteran tell someone at the VA that the government aid was helpful but what he really needed was a job. Trump is right — the dignity of work is a beautiful thing to behold. The election of President Donald J. Trump has been a game changer when considering the political support for one side of the spectrum. The identity politics of the Left has done nothing but cause election losses. That is a fact. The white, working-class, middle-American will be missing for a long time in the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton made it perfectly clear that the Left did not care about flyover country during the election. The overt racism of Black Lives Matter and other minority hate groups has further cemented this condition. What does the Left offer the hard-working American? It doesn’t offer a job. It doesn’t offer dignity. It just offers derision of other Americans and government dependency. This is not what American wants — hence the election of Donald Trump. Trump sure has delivered, on his promises that is. Jobs are being created; economic optimism is soaring; plants are opening; coal mines are being dug; and business investment is growing again. I read today that Trump will push for America to be the energy capital of the world. The optimism is only going to grow. The business climate is only going to get better. Americans have seen the results of a decade of socialist, liberal, culturally Marxist policies, and they don’t like it. But most of all, the policies don’t work. All Obama and his minions brought to the table was failure, massive failure. Failure in government, failure in the economy, failure in foreign policy and national security, and failure in the ability of a citizen to realize the American dream. Americans have had enough. Of course, there will always be those who choose to be dependent on government and live off the largess of others. But my gut tells me as Trump makes America great again, many of those people will see the light and actually get a job. The younger generation, who is now moving to college age and called Generation Z, have seen all of this happen. They have seen their parents struggle. They have seen their parents lose their dignity. They have seen their parents becoming dependent on the local commissar for a handout. They will also see the opposite — they will see the fruits of capitalism. They will see factories open. They will feel the optimism. There will be no where else to attribute this change in circumstances except to Trump and conservative policies. America is becoming one big learning lab for its younger citizens. In addition to the national policies changing the face of America, there will be changes in our university and educational systems. We are at the zenith of cultural Marxism right now in this country. It is painfully obvious that the communism lovers in our institutions of higher education have had the run of the asylum and wreaked havoc. There will be changes here. I don’t know what form it will take or how it will happen, but the groundswell of public outrage and alumni queasiness about the lack of freedom of speech on campus is coming to a head. There will be consequences. It is not okay for speech to be restricted anywhere in our educational process. It is not okay for due process to be withheld from male victims of rape accusations. It is not okay for tenured professors to spew racist and communist propaganda at our young people. This will change, I am confident of it. The pendulum is slowly starting to swing the other way. Generation Z will face a smaller sea of Neo-Bolsheviks as they enter college. This is a good thing. There was a study released recently which delved into the political beliefs and tendencies of Generation Z as they move to take the place of the Millennial generation. There could not be a more striking divide between the ‘live in your parent’s basement’ generation and the new group coming of age. The study concluded that Generation Z is the most conservative since the end of World War II. This is a stunning revelation and I believe it is due to the factors I have outlined above. They have been able to observe the two different views of the world, the two ways of living your life as a taker and a maker. They want to be the latter. Perhaps it is deeper and more simple than that. Perhaps they have seen that the Democratic Party — the Left, the ‘progressives,’ the cultural Marxists, the racists, whatever you want to call this rag-tag opposition to President Trump and Make America Great Again — have nothing to offer that will make their lives more successful or fulfilling. Perhaps Generation Z has seen with their own eyes that the Democratic Party is nothing more than a huge, stinking mountain of organized crime, that desires to steal from other’s hard work and vision. Maybe that is why even the term ‘hard work’ is now deemed a ‘micro aggression’ by these idiots. Yes, I believe that America is about to experience a generation of success and prosperity, driven by a reawakening of conservative principles. Before the election, I did a book signing in a hotel near an airport. The young manager of the place was an Indian man. He came over and started asking me questions from time-to-time when the crowd thinned down. The conversation quickly turned to politics and he guardedly asked me my opinions on Trump and Hillary — I gave them to him. As I was packing my things to leave an hour or so later, he came over and quietly informed me that he was voting for Trump. “My family did things legally,” he declared, “I can’t stand the Democrats.” Answer: daddy
Shoutout To This Father-Son Duo Who Avenged Their Daughter/Sister’s Death By Kidnapping And Kicking The Shit Out Of Her Heroin Hookup Until He Named Names Want to advertise with Turtleboy? Email us at Turtleboysports@gmail.com for more information. Trashlive: Hours after a 32-year-old woman from Western Massachusetts fatally overdosed in Rhode Island on Monday, her father and brother were arrested in what police are calling a kidnapping and attack on her suspected heroin hookup. Police arrived on Baldwin Hill Road in the small Berkshire County town of Egremont around 4:15 p.m. to find the late woman’s father allegedly choking and striking a struggling man while his son helped hold down his arms. Both father and son were “screaming different versions of ‘you killed my [expletive] daughter’ and ‘you killed my [expletive] sister,'” according to a report by Egremont Police Officer Hans Carlson, obtained Friday by MassLive. The man was able to escape the slow-moving van on Baldwin Hill Road, whereupon both Lombardis allegedly followed him out and continued the attack, which residents of the street observed and reported to police, who intervened in a quick response. I don’t normally condone vigilantism, but at the same time, we’re living in a state filled to the brim with Deval Patrick judges that let scumbags out onto the street time and time again. Some times you just gotta do what you gotta do. Nah mean? Big shoutout to this father and son duo who realized that this was the only way they were going to receive any sort of satisfaction. There’s no way the idiot they kidnapped ever saw it coming either. There’s a reason it was just the son that was supposed to show up. The Dad looks like he done killed 4-5 people before. Plus his name is Ralph. I don’t fuck with guys named Ralph who wear shirts like that. That’s just common sense. Meanwhile the son appears to be your average Berkshire hippie jock who is no stranger to craft beer festivals: Never in a million years did the “victim” think that guy right there was gonna kidnap him in a van and waterboard him to kingdom come until he named names. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – there is no one more gutless than a heroin dealer. Pot dealers are great, and coke dealers I don’t have strong opinions on. Know why? Because they do their own product. Heroin dealers don’t. Because they’d be dead pretty quickly. If you can’t stand by your product then you’re a piece of shit. People who sell heroin are choad monkeys because they KNOW they’re profiting off of the self-destruction of another person. There has never, ever, ever been a positive affect of heroin. Ever. You are selling poison to stupid and vulnerable people who don’t know any better. You are the lowest of the low. Granted the guy they kicked the shit out of wasn’t the actual dealer. But he knew who the dealer was and it was time to name names. This is the only way to get that information. Big props for doing it mafia style too by using a van, and telling the idiot they picked up that they were gonna magically fix his debt problems. The only surprising part about this story is that they got caught in Egremont. Egremont is easily top 5 places to dump a body in Massachusetts. Ever been there before? It’s a real trip. Nestled next to Alford, Mount Washington (there’s a town called Mount Washington), New York state, and the metropolis of Great Barrington, there’s no reason for anyone to ever go to Egremont. Ever. The fact that this nudnik jumped out of the van and people were actually there to see it is nothing less than a statistical miracle. I don’t wanna say that father and son are heroes, but they kind of just revolutionized the opiate epidemic. If you sell heroin, you no longer get a free pass from some SJW judge. You get old school punishment from the family. At least that might present a detriment for potential dealers down the road. We urge you to support the following local businesses. They provide terrific services for the community! Answer: daddy
On July 28 1982, President Ronald Reagan designated August 14 as Navajo Code Talkers Day. Reagan called it a day dedicated to "all members of the Navajo Nation and to all Native Americans who gave their special talents and their lives so that others might live." "When called upon to serve the United States, [the Navajo Nation] contributed a precious commodity never before used in this way. In the midst of the fighting in the Pacific during World War II, a gallant group of men from the Navajo Nation utilized their language in coded form to help speed the Allied victory." According to the U.S. Marine Corps, Code Talkers took part in every assault by Marines in the Pacific during the war from 1942 to 1945 serving in all Marine six divisions. The Code Talkers were a vital part to the Allied forces victory as the Navajo language is the only spoken code to have never been deciphered. "The dedication and unswerving devotion to duty shown by the men of the Navajo Nation," Reagan said the proclamation, "should serve as a fine example for all Americans." PHOTOS: Honoring the Navajo Code Talkers Answer: layer
Donald Trump lit a fresh controversy this week with his suggestion that "Second Amendment people" could stop Hillary Clinton from naming her judicial picks, if she becomes president - a remark many interpreted as a suggestion that gun rights activists could violently target Clinton or her judicial nominees. ""If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Trump said at a rally on Tuesday. "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know. But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day." Trump and his defenders say critics misread the remark. They insist the GOP nominee was merely talking about Second Amendment supporters peacefully exercising their political power to prevent Clinton from appointing jurists to the federal bench. And some have pointed to a similar gaffe Clinton made in 2008 to argue that Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt. As the Democratic nomination was slipping from her grasp in May 2008, Clinton faced calls to drop out and endorse then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who'd at that point built a virtually insurmountable lead in the primary. When she was asked by a South Dakota newspaper at the end of that month why she was still running, Clinton replied, "You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? ...We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." To some, Clinton's response suggested she was staying in the race because there was a possibility Obama could be killed, as Bobby Kennedy had been during the 1968 Democratic primary. After an indignant eruption from Obama's team, Clinton quickly backtracked: "I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever." It wasn't quite a pristine mea culpa - she apologized "if" her remark was "in any way offensive," not for the remark itself. But it's worth noting that she was considerably more contrite than Trump has been in response to his own misstep. "Give me a break," Trump scoffed to Fox News when asked about the criticism. His campaign released a statement blaming the "dishonest media" for manufacturing the controversy. On May 25, 2008, days after Clinton's remark on RFK, her spokesman, Howard Wolfson, appeared on "Face the Nation" to offer the campaign's version of events. "What she clearly said, and what she meant, was that, in previous election cycles--and she referenced first her husband's in 1992, and then 1968--we've had campaigns that have gone on into June and actually beyond," he said. "And so her reference to Senator Kennedy was a historical reference. The people in the room in South Dakota where she said this at the newspaper found nothing peculiar about it. She has said this before; there was no commentary or discussion about it when she'd said it before. And I think, unfortunately, her remarks have been blown out of proportion. She very quickly made clear what she meant. If she caused anyone any discomfort or pain--because it is obviously a very sensitive topic--she apologized. But she was talking about it in a historical context." Still, Wolfson later added, he didn't believe Clinton owed Obama a personal apology. "Her remarks were not about Senator Obama," Wolfson explained. "They had nothing to do with Senator Obama. And so, you know, there would be no reason for her to apologize to Senator Obama." Answer:
layer