Apparently even actual war crimes aren’t war crimes if you just call it a military operation. We’ve always never been at war with the genetic cilantro soapers.

It wasn’t just “don’t bow to a king” but also “taxes are a legitimate method of funding the public welfare,” which directly contradicts the right wing libertarian ethos. It was also saying that more permanent safety was an achievable goal without having to give up freedom. He wasn’t saying that freedom (to regulate and tax as a representative body) and safety were always mutually exclusive. So to use such an example to say that people need the freedom to endanger multiple lives even though the safety provided by the regulation isn’t just temporary is an absurd misappropriation. Dying in a car accident because a selfish asshole decides not to wear a seatbelt or removes the seatbelts from his vehicle isn’t very free.

It’s not an interpretation. You’re ignoring the verifiable context of the quote and the speaker. You’re actively choosing to misrepresent it for your propaganda. This undermines your narrative and marks you as transparently untrustworthy. If you don’t care about that, then nothing you say has value.

The irony is that you don’t need to be dishonest to undermine your propaganda. You’ve already been doing that with your honest enthusiasm for deregulation as if everyone thinks seatbelt laws are oppressive government overreach.

Except it’s not a subjective topic like which flavor of ice cream is better. We can actually see whether the speaker of the quote would agree with your positions. You’re not agreeing to disagree. You’re saying you don’t care about verifiable facts because you’re not interested in intellectual honesty. You’re saying you don’t care what he actually thought and just want to use him to push your propaganda.

And that doesn’t contradict the fact that the quote was used to support the right of the legislature to tax the wealthy and property owners for the greater good of all citizens, including their long term (not short term) safety. The point still stands. The quote is not in defense of right wing libertarian philosophy and is being used out of context.

If you’re just going to transparently use unrelated quotes for your propaganda, you might as well just make up the quotes.

I love it when libertarians quote this out of context, not realizing that it often contradicts their positions.

The quote is backing the right of the state legislature to levy taxes on wealthy assholes who want the benefit of property ownership and political power but who don’t want to contribute to the welfare of society.

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

It’s a lot easier to ignore because so many news sites have pay walls now, so if you really want to know about the topic you put the effort into finding another source or using an archive service. If you’re not interested enough, you just let it go.

But the term predated the actual vote. It was coined in 2015 before the primary.

You should definitely remove this when you get a chance because you don’t want him to allege that you’re releasing his information since the screenshot does contain identifying information.

But that said, I would confirm that he’s previously provided everything listed under ORS 652.610 because that’s what he’s legally required to provide for each paystub. If he hasn’t, then he’s been in violation of the law and you may be able to pursue the private right of action listed in the statute. But you’ll want to consult with the Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries and possibly a lawyer.

One thing that is especially odd, beyond the dubious claim of having spoken to a lawyer, is that he claims to have already compiled the documentation. Why would he spend 8.8 hours doing the work of compiling documentation if he isn’t already certain you’re going to pay him the $1232? That’s not logical. He likely hasn’t done the work and if it actually did take that long, it would be due to his choice of poor document management. If he had digital records, it definitely wouldn’t take that long and it’s his choice on how he managements his documents.

I’m not reading that link the same way you are. It seems like from the summary of the bill, that is just calling for more transparency in paystub information. But the employer is already required to provide a significant number of fields on a paystub under ORS 652.610. So from my reading of the OP’s account, their boss hadn’t provided all of what is listed under ORS 652.610 and there is a private right of action on that statute.

Kidnapper, human trafficker, genocidal foot soldier

If nothing else, not capitalizing first letters and proper nouns will just look weird to many readers. If there’s no capitalization in a sentence, I’m inclined to assume the writer accidentally mistyped an incomplete sentence or phrase. Not capitalizing proper nouns will create significant confusion since some proper nouns are also general terms.

“after friday, land is out.”

Is that a reference to land as in earth or is it a reference to someone whose last name is Land?

Making communication more difficult by requiring your reader to spend more effort to parse your intended message might not be a good idea.

Same people who made Obama phone jokes are eager to sign up to be ripped off by Trump mobile.

Somebody doth protest too much.

Do you find this weak troll act fulfilling and useful? Good use of your time? Healthy outlet for your emotional issues?

So you are just actively advocating for a worse-than-useless solution that only helps ensure the least favorable party gets more votes while arrogantly pretending you know better than the people who have to live with the results. Got it.

That’s not a denial…

The obvious answer, voting 3rd party doesn’t register with you people.

So you admit you don’t understand first past the post voting systems.

Yes, that’s a subjective perspective on the matter. And…?

I also keep seeing this:

“The progressive congresswoman deserves the heat she’s getting for her vote against a bill that would’ve held back aid to Jerusalem”

People keep calling the amendment a bill, which it is not. Even the PhD author of that article is misconstruing the vote in question despite correctly identifying it as an amendment elsewhere.

AOC voted against the bill that funded Israel. Full stop. Saying otherwise is counterfactual, i.e a lie. Full stop.

You can quibble over the repercussions of the amendment vote. I wouldn’t have voted for or against it personally. But saying she voted for funding Israel is not correct. Saying she funds genocide is not only incorrect but would be defamation if she weren’t a public figure.

But I will ask again, what is the value of attacking AOC on this point? Will it drive voters further to the left? Will it win primaries for progressive candidates? Will it in any way affect the funding of genocide in Gaza? What is the value of this fight? If it’s just feeling self-righteous but doesn’t have any useful results, why pursue it so fiercely? The only people this fight benefits are those who want someone farther right than AOC in office.

That’s what ranked choice voting can get you.