Comments by "Ficus-lovin\x27 Capybara N\x27 pals • 🌟 • 25 yrs ago" (@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago) on "Town Wants Mural Torn Down Because it Shows ... Donuts" video.

  1. How about, "the community has spoken, now do your duty. This isn't about what YOU want, it's about what the community wants"
    6
  2.  @johngalt97  but the blue line is still highlighted. I presume that means endorsement. No? Well you can feel anyway you want if you want to be pro-gestapo who am I to tell you different... be pro-domestic terrorism and publicly-funded gangsterism if you must. I just don't think you should approve of State goons or anyone getting away with extreme violence, constant grand larceny, extortion, random aggression, organized occupation, prowling, cruelty/bullying to the weakest members of society, and general harassment. 911 needs can be served without endorsing a full-blown 1984-style police state.
    3
  3.  @johngalt97   lol. You're a blue lives matter bootlicker. 🤮🤮🤮🤢🤮
    1
  4.  @johngalt97  is indeed a word in the dictionary, that's true.
    1
  5.  @VintageCardinal  I agree?? See my separate post.
    1
  6. It's a lovely mural and there's nothing wrong with it. Also it's his business on his property and nobody should have been able to say anything. It's a stupid rule and needs to go. This is dumber than hell. And so what if it is a sign???? Don't people have the right to put up SIGNS for their business??????? The code against signs is wrong and once again - in a small but real way this is just showing how those in local "govt" never have morals or decency at heart or concern for their community at heart, but are instead gangsters, criminal, savages, tyrants and wannabe dictators. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this work, whether it is a sign or mural. The community made it clear, call it what you will they want this sign/artwork to stay. But that wasn't good enough for these local tyrants. It is the ridiculous anti-sign code stipulation which needs to go. Everyone needs to start suing their local city much more often. They are thugs. And if that sounds like rather strong words to describe them, that's just because most people don't have the pleasure of dealing with them more often. These are people who are desperate to be autocratic absolute-power dictators in all matters small and large. These are nothing crooked thugs in suits, taking back room bribes and payoffs to do the will of big-money interests. And although this is a relatively minor matter, it shows how they behave in general. And anyone who's had the misfortune of dealing with these criminals knows just what I'm talking about. They want to rule with an iron fist, usually though not always, in a totally corrupt away, in a way that helps their rich big business friends. The local community can demand and speak till they're blue in the face but these local tyrants have a breathtaking way of being made of Teflon; nothing the community says or does makes an impact and just rolls right off. That's why I say usually only suing works bec it's really only a show of force that thugs understand. This man gave many reasonable responses explain why the ordinance needed to be reformed or simply removed and they didn't want to hear it. It's a non-violent minor matter but its illustrative to show how these types of people are. They are would-be iron fist tyrants that want to use force and tyranny to impose their will on the world around them. Some ordinances may make sense, but this one is foolish and stupid. No one is being harmed by a cheerful mural on the front of a donut shop. And it certainly should fall until the rights of a business owner to put up an appropriate sign related to his business. Even though this is a relatively small matter, it still matters. Because simply they are being unfair and unreasonable on this issue, and when the community spoke out they should have realized that they were taking the ordinance too far. Clearly they have no respect for the small business owners in their community or they wouldn't be trying to force the issue, even going so far to demand outrageous usurious fines.
    1