>>10542097 (pb)
Thank you anon for finding and drawing eyes to this. [pic related] the author says "the next chapter" - I looked through a few articles he published subsequently but didn't find the promised "next chapter." Have you? Is it yet published?
Just eliminate their antitrust exemption. It's long past time.
>When we get to carve of chunks of that, you will be getting a free 24 carat gold necklace with every dress that you buy at Nordstroms.
Sure. And when we build those nuclear power plants, electricity will be free, too. I remember those pie-in-the-sky promises. Don't get fooled again!
It will stop when those funding this terrorism pay the price for their crimes. Assets confiscated, hard time breaking rocks at Gitmo - that'll shut off the flow of money which is paying for their tent-camps complete with porta-johns and snack sheds; buses around the country to the next staged event; funds to bail the stooges out and rent lawyers… Dry up the funding and these events will stop.
I wonder what or whom she sacrificed and what she expects to receive for her troubles. Time will tell regarding her "reward," but the sacrifice may or may not ever come to light.
>a CRACK PIDDJIN is a destitute example of Human Detritus whom has run …
Make that "…who has run…" Use "who" when the pronoun is a subject and "whom" when it's used as a direct object. In your sentence quoted above, you have a subject-verb simple sentence, "crack piddjin is"; then you have a direct object, "a destitute example," followed by a prepositional phrase modifying the direct object "example," (of human detritus) using inappropriate capitalization. Then you begin a dependent clause, "who has run" followed by more modifiers etc. "Who" is the subject in the dependent clause, not a direct object, so "whom" is incorrect.