Home

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 10 April 2019

Comments at the end, though I don't think any are really needed.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 01 April 2019

The established law started with "No new 'hi capacity'* magazines."  In 1994ish.  I may not have the date exact. Doesn't matter.  I'm lazy, look it up if you care.

(*Standard capacity for the weapon redefined as "high capacity" by a bunch of legislative faggots with no technical knowledge and no other credentials. About like claiming any gas tank over 5 gallons is "High capacity.")

Then it was "No repair parts" and "no spare parts."  Because that was a loophole* you could drive a semi through, and people did. Some companies marked production dates on their mags for this and other reasons, which helped ID the "Bad" ones.  Some weren't produced until after that deadline.

(*A "loophole" means "we're ignorant shitheads who didn't actually say what we mean, and for some reason, people and the courts are going by what we said." Sort of like that crazy chick who expects you to understand what "it's fine" means.)

Then it was, "Turn them in to be destroyed."

And an injunction.

And a court ruling, rescinding all of it. The entire fucking law.

Which means, even if it was only in effect for 90 seconds, and so far it's at least 90 hours, ANY MAGAZINE made between 1994 and the present can legally be brought into CA, whether or not it's marked any particular way.  And even if they get an injunction against the injunction, followed by winning a case against the case they just lost, all those magazines will remain grandfathered legal in CA.

And because there is no way to distinguish those magazines from any other identical magazines, anything found in CA with that production date range must be assumed to have been legally acquired in this window.  If residents bring in 10 million more magazines made between 1993 and X, and don't get caught, once in CA, the burden of proof will be on the state to prove they were imported after X. Which hasn't happened yet and may not.

So even if X happens and Commiefornia manages to ban them again, using different language, the billions of mags in the state will remain legal, and CA will have to start from scratch down the road of fascist cocksuckery.

And they even admit so here: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-01-Defendants-Ex-Parte-to-Stay-Judgment-Pending-Appeal.pdf?fbclid=IwAR01_1K_OqyVrZhiHGCh3fzKnDwqydLg1g1UfcAXIEwHV9ddwa7_JLnNFRY

Watching hoplophobic faggots squirm in agony is almost as delightful as watching fetus fetishists be told for the 48,972nd time that Roe v Wade is established.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 24 March 2019

This one is rather simple.

Just listen for the catchphrase, "Voter ID disenfranchises blacks."

They'll explain to you at length (god, can they generate a lot of CO2 for little traction) that lots of blacks are unable to get ID, something something poverty.

Now, state IDs are very cheap, easy to get, and states that require voter ID will take several types. Anyone receiving public aid of any kind should have a state ID.

And to the point: Lots of whites, Asians and Hispanics also live in poverty. But the "liberals" don't mention them at all. Apparently, they know how to get ID.

Obviously, liberals believe blacks are too stupid to do what everyone else does.

And, they assume a majority of blacks will vote for them.

They're still pining for their plantations and slaves, with the good liberals saving those poor darkies who are too stupid and helpless to do it themselves.

They DO occasionally mention the Indians, but only with the false narrative that tribal ID isn't valid for voting (it is) and reservation Indians are unable to vote because of this (false).

~~~

Rounds Two, Three and Four.

Elizabeth Warren was never Cherokee by genetics, by blood fraction, by upbringing, by involvement. As far as anyone can tell, she knows literally nothing about them. Even her recipe submitted to "Pow Wow Chow" was first, a plagiarized French recipe, and second, had no relation to any native cooking at all, especially the Cherokee.  However, she was more than willing to claim minority status for college and teaching benefits, thus depriving a person of real native ancestry those same jobs.

Further, if you can proudly claim minority status for advantage, it gives lie to any claim you believe they're disadvantaged. (HINT: Actual natives are often disadvantaged, often more so than the descendants of former slaves.)  You just think of them as a convenient checkbox in your greed for power and millions.

That's about as fucking racist as you get. 

By comparison, my older kids ARE Cherokee by blood fraction, but not recognized, because at the time of the Dawes Rolls, the great grandmother claimed to be Greek, because that was a whole lot safer than being Indian.

My youngest is Cherokee AND Choctaw by blood fraction, and may be able to get recognized once some documentation is reconstructed.

But I've met plenty of "liberals" who insist my family are "white," because they "look it" (actually, my wife and the older two don't look European), but support E Warren.  Who is paler than me, and I'm Scottish and English by origin, and an immigrant.

They're vile fucking racists willing to fuck over my actual native relatives for some leftist street cred.

 

Beta O'Dork claims to be Hispanic because he lived in an Hispanic neighborhood. By that logic, I'm black and Korean.  Once again, he has no blood relation, no genetic relation, no cultural background, doesn't speak Spanish.  All he wants is the imprimatur of association for political benefit.

It doesn't work on most Hispanics.  But all over Twitter, his "liberal" followers were wailing that they had to "vote for Beto" to beat that "Racist Ted Cruz."

So, Rafael Theodore Cruz is half Cuban, half American, speaks fluent Spanish, can be jokingly described as a Person of Swarth, and actually has relevant cultural background.

But if you're a racist "liberal" piece of shit, the white Bostonian with the Irish name is the Hispanic, and the Cuban is the white guy.

 

Then there was the case where they had to measure the relative skin points of the murderer trying to smash someone's head in, with his victim's, to claim that a man with a Peruvian mother, a black grandfather, and both Jewish and Catholic cultural input, was suddenly a "white Hispanic." Because obviously, to support the false narrative of him being the attacker, he had to be "white." Even though he wouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of a Klan gathering.

Because when a punk who doesn't live in the neighborhood (an uncle's house doesn't count) realizes he's being tracked while he cases the joint, turns on his observer and tries to smash his head in, and gets shot in the process, he's suddenly the victim.  The responses of:

*Photoshopping a picture of him at age 12 to look cleaner and more innocent, when he's almost 18.

*Lying about his criminal background and claiming there wasn't one.

*Insisting he lived in the neighborhood when he didn't.

*Doctoring the 911 audio to suggest the defender was racist, when was ASKED what race the perp was.

*Insisting that at 5'10" athletic man beating someone's head into the ground is "an unarmed boy."

*LIGHTENING the images of the mixed race Hispanic to claim he's "white."

*Insisting the defender "could have just walked away" when he was doing just that, but not that the attacker should have.

*Insisting that somehow the prosecutor, the mixed-race jury, and the FBI are all part of some racist white cabal to murder the "child."

*Stalking the defender for years, harassing him, claiming every reaction to being harassed non-stop proves he's a bad person (and even if he was, irrelevant to the case).

Are just a bingo game of virtue signaling, lies and propaganda to try to distract the world from the fact that modern American "liberals" are VILE FUCKING RACISTS, who cannot judge anything on the merits and facts, but only on the skin color of the parties involved, and that those poor darkies need their help, because they can't handle it alone.

I concede the possibility that a non-racist "liberal" exists.  I've yet to meet one. I HAVE met non-racist socialists, old school Democrats, and even communists who are decent, egalitarian people. But modern "liberals" are literal fucking Nazis, and need reminded of it regularly.

Eventually they're going to get what the previous Nazis got.

I will cheer.  

EDIT: oh, yeah, and then there's "gentrification."  Because apparently, only white people can have a nice neighborhood, and blacks need to know their place, with their stereotype, and they better stick to it.

Details

Written by Michael Z Williamson

Created: 18 March 2019

A couple of weeks back, I clicked on a "featured" photo or such on Photobucket front page.

Immediately, popups exploded and insisted my system was infected, vitally important I call their toll free number, etc.

I closed fast, and luckily, my malware protection worked.  

But this was a photo they were PROMOTING.  Linked to malware.

I had another issue the week after that (which follows).  I tried to click on the FAQ button for help, and THAT triggered popups and another loud voiceover if, "We have detected your system may be infected with malware, viruses or porn. It is vitally important you not close this window, and contact our toll free" etc.  With an attempt to download, which I refused.

This time my malware protection quarantined the file.

I contacted support and informed them of this.  They asked if I had a screenshot. No, duh. However, I reported that I had the quarantined file, gave them all system details, etc. 

No response. Apparently they don't give a shit that their site is hosting threatware, possible ransomware, and other stuff. Or maybe they get a kick back? How does their FAQ button trigger malware unless their entire site is corrupted?

~~

And why was I contacting them?

Because I got autobilled in December, and billed again in March, and I wanted to complain about it.

The December charge was $29.99.  March was $59.99.  They refunded $29.99 and told me they cancelled that plan.

I asked why that one and not March, and where had March come from?  And that I'd apparently been billed for both the year before as well.  The December bill had been in effect since 2015.  The March one started in 2018.  They asked for documentation, I sent it.

I vaguely recall I may have been told the Dec plan was going away and the new minimum was $59.99, which is why I'd been pulling images anyway, planning to shut it down and go elsewhere--I can host on my own now, cheaper.

I was using about 174 meg of a 60 gig plan. Barely enough to even show on the bar.

But, if the $29.99 annual Dec billed plan was going away, why was I still getting billed for it as well as the new one?

I inquired, they quoted the previous correspondence. They don't intend to reimburse me for anything else.

Now I'm not a lawyer, and not versed in the finer points of fraud law, but this certainly looks like it to me.

Add in that they seem to endorse ransomware on their site.

And then there's the 57,435 ads that pop up when you try to access it from a phone.

My advice?  Don't give them a cent, don't click on their site. There's no benefit, and every reason not to.

EDIT:  Oh, yeah--I contacted their "Delete my plan so I can delete my account" email twice in a week and never got a response.  I can't delete the account until I beg them to cancel the plan, which they have not done.  Almost as if they intend to keep charging me every year for service I'm not using.