Who wants to invoke a racial war in the US?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

People responsible for paying out the costs?

Have you ever done fundraising before even on a small scale? Each time money changes hands it is written out as paid to so and so. That doesn't mean that so and so deposits it or cashes it for their own personal income.

Where does Chelsea Clintons $600,000 a year invome come from then?

My two bobs worth....

Race war, class war, ethnic cleansing etc, only means one thing....poor people killing each other again!

I dont know many 'coloured' people, I neither hate or love them whatever some of them get up to.
But I really dont want to start feeding them into the mincer. Same applies to asians, muslims, various other religions etc.

Okay so theres a problem with 'kiiler cops', 'feral afro-americans' but mostly apathetic people who could care less how badly others are being treated. BTW this is NOT an ant USA rant, all of the above applies to the UK, well apart from the killer cops. Ours are bad enough with a short stick, God knows what they be like with a gun to hand.

a reply to: IanFleming

What does that have to do with anything? I don't know or care but I'm guessing speaking fees... yes they're that outrageous.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: IanFleming

What does that have to do with anything? I don't know or care but I'm guessing speaking fees... yes they're that outrageous.

She does not get them for speaking fees, that is her annual salary for doing something at her parents charity organization as an "employee" at said organization and it is relavant because quite often fund raising money does indeed get turned over for salaries--they call it "overhead."

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I don't disagree with the information you posted that shows people were paid to protest. But you posted those links and info trying to prove people were paid to RIOT. That's a big difference and you have not proven as much.

Let me ask you a question, here, as I've been following this immature argument between you and ManBehindTheMask--if a "protestor" shows up, then begins rioting, and then still gets paid, how is that not being paid to riot? The intention of the "employer" may have been to have them only protest, but when that "employee" deviates from the intended job, causes harm to body and property, and the "employer" still pays him/her, they're basically saying, "Job well done."

So, which is it? Either the "employer" is happy with the job that the rioters did, or they initially hired them expecting this to happen, otherwise they wouldn't have paid the "employees" for what they did--unless, of course, it turned into hush money, but that's just me being cheeky and throwing in some unsubstantiated speculation.