正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Planning stays just got a lot simpler. Marriott properties are now fully integrated into the VoyageBliss WhatsApp bot. Ask anything about a hotel and get answers sourced directly from the property. No guesswork, no made up details. Need to check if breakfast is included, airport transfer charges, or what...

14,773 次观看 • 4 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🚨BREAKING: ICE agents walked onto PRIVATE PROPERTY in Brownsville, Texas, without a warrant, with their guns drawn… and then threatened to ARREST the property owner for telling them to get off his own property. In the video, six ICE agents walk onto the property, with guns drawn, and start searching it. The property owner tells them to get off his private property, and they ignore him. Then, they start chase after a man, who starts running, and tackles him. The property owner runs over and tells them… “Get out of here. This is private property.” The ICE agent literally responds, “That doesn’t matter. He was running. Get back.” Then the agent starts SHOVING the property owner backward. The owner tells him, “I live here.” The agent tells him to back up or he’ll be arrested. ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. Then the owner asks, “Where is your warrant?” And the ICE agent says… “We do not need a warrant.” Except… that’s not how the Constitution works. The Fourth Amendment protects civilians from unreasonable searches and seizures. ICE does NOT get to just walk onto private property, guns drawn, search it, and ignore the property owner demanding to know their legal authority… because they claim they saw someone run. And what makes this even more disturbing is that when a U.S. citizen is questioning why armed federal agents are on HIS property, the response is to SHOVE him and threaten to arrest him. Because apparently telling armed federal agents to get off your own property… is now grounds for arrest. This is exactly why people need to be recording every ICE encounter. Because when the people with guns, and badges, refuse to explain what legal authority they have, the video may be the only thing showing what actually happened. The Constitution still applies to ICE. And no badge gives you the right to just assault a U.S. citizen when they demand you get off their property.

Jesus Freakin Congress

416,807 次观看 • 8 天前

SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY? “People are waking up to the fact that the asset seizure tax is an elimination of private property rights, that fundamentally what you're saying [is] that private property now becomes public property. Because as soon as you give the government the right to collect your post-tax assets through a legislative vote, you are basically saying that you no longer have private property — because at any point in the future the government can vote to say I'm going to take your private property — which is different than an income tax. [An income tax] is when you earn something that you didn't have before, and they take a percentage of your earnings (of your income). The statement now is after you've made your income (it's now your private property) — they can come and take it. And so that is a distinction that has never existed in the United States. And I will make the retort right now to property tax, because people always say to me: ‘what about property tax?’ A property tax is a service fee on a particular, specific asset. The money that is collected provides services for that asset to make it more valuable. So you get roads, infrastructure, policing, fire, schools… All the stuff that comes with property tax makes that property [more valuable]. And you have the option at any point you want to sell that property and stop paying that property tax. You have the option at any point to downgrade your property and get a cheaper property and pay [a lower tax]. And here's the other important point about property tax: it’s uniform. Uniform means that everyone pays the same percentage, the same property tax rate in a county. This asset seizure tax that's being proposed is a demographic tax — meaning that the state or the legislature defines a specific group of individuals (in this case, they're saying anyone with a net worth over a billion dollars) and then they can go and take assets from only that group. That is nonuniform taxation. It means that for the first time we're saying based on the demographics of a person meaning whatever you want to use to define that person (in this case their wealth) — you are going to be treated differently. And that is different than an income tax, because remember when you have graduated income tax rates (and you say high earners get taxed more) — what you're taxing is the earnings, not the individual. You're not looking through to the individual to determine whether or not they're wealthy. All you're doing is looking at the independent earnings amount that's coming in. And so a uniformity clause is supposed to protect people from being demographically discriminated against. And you may roll your hand and be like: ‘Oh, who cares about the billionaires? Eat the rich. That's great.’ But fundamentally, you're giving the government, the legislature, the ability to in the future take any demographic definition they want and go in and take any percentage they want of after-tax property from you. That is why this is so troubling.” david friedberg The All-In Podcast

Ron Pragides 

258,567 次观看 • 7 个月前