That was my take as well, felt like they were just giving each other shit with no hard feelings. The article makes it seem like him putting the hat on was a disaster, but watching the video it's clear that everyone is just joking around. He literally says enjoy the pizza and don't eat any cats or dogs.
It's not true, it was both passed by Congress and ratified by 42 of the then 48 states (only 36 were required for the amendment to be ratified). The ability of the government to collect income tax has been examined, clarified, and upheld multiple times by the Supreme Court and Federal courts. Please, for your own sake, doing listen to these people and pay your taxes so you don't end up with a huge tax bill or jail time.
No, I'm well aware. Their rep didn't resign, X made the decision to cease operations rather than comply with Brazilian law. Just because Elon, you, or I don't agree with the law it doesn't mean he can ignore it without consequences.
Probably an unpopular opinion but Elon is definitely in the wrong here. The law is that any company doing business in Brazil has to have a legal representative in Brazil. The US has the same legal requirement for businesses, it's called an officer or registered agent. Every business has to have one in any country they operate. When I started my business I had to have one just like everyone else.
Twitter decided they didn't need to have one, Brazil told them they did, Elon told them to fuck off and now Twitter has to deal with the consequences.
Okay so I looked into this and this article is really making this decision out to be something it isn't.
After actually reading the decision, this case was about mortgages issued by Bank of America, a national bank, in the state of New York. New York has a law that says banks that issue mortgages with escrow accounts in the state have to pay interest on those accounts. Bank of America argued that because it was a national bank, it did not have to abide by the New York law because state laws could not regulate national banks, and therefore it didn't have to pay the interest.
The decision the Supreme Court made said that there are two kinds of banks, national banks and state banks. That's the "dual system of banking" the article is talking about. This two tiered system means a state can't make a law that impedes a national banks ability to operate as a national bank, which is what Bank of America argued the New York law was doing.
Initially the court ruled that the New York did NOT prevent Bank of America from acting as a national bank siding with the plaintiff. BoA appealed and the appeals court overturned the decision. Finally, the Supreme Court overruled the appeals court, deciding that the New York law was legal and gave guidance to the lower courts for making similar rulings in the future. That's all the ruling was about.
As for the silver and gold thing, this ruling has nothing to do with it. Currently, several states have toyed with the idea of creating gold banked notes, but none have actually gone through with it. So essentially it would probably come down to the courts to clarify article 1, section 10 of the constitution, but my guess is that any state that actually tried would eventually be be shot down for creating a currency.
According to the motion, the chain of custody wasn't breached. The judge had already rules in this case citing this motion and the motion this one was referencing and she didn't this out the evidence. The only thing she did was delay the trial date indefinitely to conduct pretrial hearings, which is a win, but definitely not as big a deal as this article implies.
I'll probably catch some flak for this but if you don't believe me you can read the motion yourself. At least that way you won't be disappointed when this turns out to be nothing.
This is the second time today I'm seeing this from the same source and it just isn't what they're claiming. If you read the actual motion the only thing it admits is that some stuff ended up out of order when it was moved, not that anything was removed, destroyed, or tampered with. Attorneys for the defense have access to all of the files both physical and digital and are NOT arguing that anything is missing. All they are arguing is that they are out of order and that they need a delay to be able to properly sort through the evidence.
Care to tell me where I'm wrong in the comment? I've seen this a couple times from the gateway pundit where their headline says one thing but the story is completely different. I don't trust them as a source anymore and it bothers me every time I see them at the top of the page here.
What exactly was the lie here? From reading the notes of the motion it seems like he originally claimed that all of the evidence presented was
“in their original, intact form as seized” by stating “[t]hey are, with one exception; and that is that the classified documents have been removed and placeholders have been put in the documents”
Based on what I read, the only thing different was that all of the documents were kept in the boxes they were in, but that some of the stuff had shifted when it was moved so it was out of order so not technically "in their original, intact form as seized". I don't know if I'd call that a lie , and it definitely doesn't seem like something Judge Cannon would do anything about. According to the actual motion, the defense has access to all of the files so they should be able to tell if anything is missing but they aren't saying it is. Honestly this really looks like not a big deal if you actually read the motion.
This is just not true, a ridiculous amount of civil lawsuits are settled out of court. Fox News settled with Dominion for over 3/4 of a billion dollars because Dominion claimed Fox lied about their voter fraud coverage. Everyone here knows how much voter fraud there was in 2020, but Fox settled anyway. Even when you know you're right, with the courts this rigged do you really want to risk going to trial?
The headline of this story is completely wrong. It says they admitted a violation, but if you read the letter they posted it is just a notice that the board was going to consider the report they were given. For some reason they underlined a part that says "this matter is in the violation found category" as if that was proof that they were admitting to violations.
Really all the letter says is that they were given a report from a private investigator and that report looked at several things. For some of those things they claim they didn't find violations and for other things they claim they found violations. The letter just says that in the meeting they would be discussing the parts of the report that claims they found violations, that is the "violation found category" the letter is talking about. It doesn't admit anything, it just says they're going to have a meeting to review the parts of the report that claims there are violations and decide if they need to submit it to the attorney general.
Gotta be honest, this is way too "woo woo" for me. The eclipse is just physics we've been able to predict for centuries. This just seems like a bunch of really big stretches and there are so many more "real" and relevant things going on that this article just comes off as a distraction.
Originally the Constitution gave Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" in article 1 Section 8. This link has the full text as well as context and history. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-1/
The original Constitution didn't have an income tax but the 16th amendment explicitly gives Congress the legal right to impose and collect an income tax.
This link explains the history of it. https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/constitutional-amendments-amendment-16-income-taxes#:~:text=Amendment%20Sixteen%20to%20the%20Constitution,determine%20it%20based%20on%20population.
There are people that argue that it's unconditional, but if they aren't paying taxes they are absolutely breaking the law and if the IRS ever audits them they'll be in for a world of hurt. Even Benjamin Franklin said the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes. Please, for your and your family's sake, pay your taxes. Anyone that tells you that you don't have to is either very wrong or intentionally lying to you.
At a close enough range there is enough force that the round can travel straight through the body. There wouldn't be much blood at first until it started pooling. Depending on how heavy a person's clothing is, that can prevent splatter as well.
It literally says in the article you linked that the image they're using for all of their comparisons is altered...