Quiet as it’s been kept lately among the insanity of evangelicals, rabid Catholics like this are buoyed by the seeming acceptance of Christian symbolism and are quietly infiltrating into government everywhere. From having been seen as a papist conspiracy during JFKs election til now, look at the changes—primarily at the SCt where 6 of 9’justices are catholic. Hence the anti abortion decision.
If we are going to have church-state violations, it's probably actually good to have them coming from different sects. That helps bring it home to each sect that if they open this door, their own sect won't be the only ones who get to use it - that they may find someone else's religious beliefs will be imposed on them. It also makes it just a tad harder for religious judges to favor one sect over all others (and nones) without giving away their arbitrariness.
Each group of rabid religionistas view the other as useful in their quest to eradicate all non-Christians. When they have accomplished that, they will turn on each other.
As Catholic as Massachusetts is in general (and Boston, especially), I'm not certain that I'm surprised at this action by the city of Quincy. That doesn't change the fact that they are using religious iconography in a public space, which clearly suggests if not blatantly shows an implied religious preference. Mayor Tom Koch should well and properly be called out on this action, and I appreciate Dan Minton's doing so publicly. I am also pleased to see that Americans United and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have gotten involved.
Once again, the camel is trying to poke its nose into the tent. Time go give his schnoz a good swat!
"Once again, the camel is trying to poke its nose into the tent. Time go give his schnoz a good swat!" I use this often. Once the camel gets his nose in... his ass will soon follow.
Indoctrination is one hell of a drug. Statues like these make up such an integral part of how he thinks that it is seemingly impossible for him to understand how such things can be offensive to anyone. When informed that there are indeed legitimate objections to religious iconography integrated into government services, he doubled down, basically claiming that no one will care once the statues are in place, implying that the objections themselves aren't real.
Seems to me that $850,000 could go a LONG way toward enhancing the QPD's equipment and/or other elements that would make them more effective at their jobs.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOO! (with apologies to John Belushi!)
It's like the defenders of the Confederate monument, on the local courthouse steps meant to intimidate, and it did. Luckily when they removed it, it got broken and is now even more worthless trash.
Lucifer as patron saint of wildfire fighters! They often 'fight fire with fire' by burning out scrub and creating pre-burned firebreaks. So it would make zero sense for their patron saint to be someone who stops all fires. :)
One can never have enough flying spaghetti monsters!
So, we'll have one in the foyer. And, what do you think one on each floor, just when you come out of the lifts? After all, if we are putting up stuff, let's do it properly.
(Isn't there a saying along those lines? A bit like that scene in Crocodile Dundee when that little scrote pulls out a knife. And Dundee responds 'that's not a knife, this is a knife' and pulls out his - much larger - knife. Go big or go home? Or what would they say in your area? (I love the variety of language!))
“Asked why the statues weren't shown to councilors when they approved funding for the project at various points between 2017 and 2022, Mayor Thomas Koch said large projects like this one sometimes "evolve" and the idea "wasn't on the table" when councilors cast their votes.”
So, the idea of the statues wasn’t conceived yet, but then…
“Ward 1 Councilor Dave McCarthy, whose district hosts the new headquarters, approved of the statues. McCarthy said he was informed of the plans "a long time ago."”
How long ago? Was it before the funding was approved? And if it was after, why didn’t the mayor have to get approval to include something that wasn’t part of the approval process before? Shouldn’t any changes, especially large expensive changes like this, be brought before the council for approval no matter their religious status? What if the mayor decided to change the layout, or add a strip club, or remove bathrooms? Wouldn’t he have to get approval for that, or can the plans just change completely once the approval for the thing is made? I know that in most cases, once plans are finalized and approved by governmental agencies, they take a shit ton of red tape to change even for minor adjustments for unforeseen circumstances, mislabeled pipes or a sudden sinkhole or stuff like that. People providing quotes can’t charge any more than they quoted no matter how much tariffs hike up prices. And then there’s the bidding process, you cannot just put your buddy on a project, they must go through the process and be chosen from multiple bidders.
This is corruption from top to bottom and it’s unconstitutional on its face.
An $850k add on a $175M project is a 0.5% add to project costs. If I were the project overseer, I frankly wouldn't go to a board/boss with that either. However, not all 0.5% cost increases are the same. This isn't like "the HVAC contractor called and revised their estimate," this increase comes with a new liability risk. THAT's why the mayor should have informed everyone. Because this change introduces a qualitatively new risk to the project. Not because it was a 'large expensive' change, because relative to the project, it really wasn't - it was budget dust, as the saying goes.
Government builds are different, all expenditures need some review. And it isn’t like this was a change in an approved system, like a revision to the HVAC system, it’s a complete addition to what was previously designed and approved. The religious nature of the addition is exactly why government projects have the micromanagement oversight they do have. Maybe not the whole board, but more than the one person making the decision to add the statues needs to be included. Even at 0.05% increase. The taxpayers don’t see the percentage anyway, but $850,000 is huge considering the income of most people in any community is a fraction of that. Not to mention every other aspect of the building required a bidding process, from the builder to the plumber to the landscaper, but the statue designer is just the mayor’s buddy. That’s corruption. Nothing about this is above board.
I do government builds. I have literally been in a room when the USG boss waved off the loss of tens of thousands of dollars (on a much larger contract) to a contractor that didn't deliver on budget, because that amount of money doesn't even really ping their radar. But I have also been in rooms where much smaller USG project expenditures were stopped dead in their tracks because the Privacy office and OGC advised that the added part of the plan was likely to result in lawsuits.
I suspect that there is a budget line somewhere in the specs for 'art' (most public buildings include some kind of art). I can also accept that the 'art' wasn't specified when the building was agreed, but that this was a later decision.
If the 'art' were something innocuous, then no-one would be upset. It's only because it is clearly religious iconography, that there is a stushie!
What Mayor Koch and his henchmen are doing is using taxpayer money [government] to promote catholicism at a government building. That's a black letter violation of the MA and US constitutions' religious establishment clauses. It also violates the rights of non-catholic, non-religious, or followers of different religions on the QPD as well as in the public.
The fact that this mayor refuses to back down in light of these clear violations and continues pushing HIS religion's iconography on a public building says that he thinks non-catholic officers and citizens are second-class and not worthy of respect by government. This ass needs to go.
“Look, just because I’m granting special privileges to this one religion to impose themselves on the public and add their exclusive iconography to public buildings and deny every other religion the same privileges, doesn’t mean that I’m endorsing that religion!”
Religious statues aren’t secular by nature. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make this any less true. Why not a statue of RoboCop and a painting of Denis Leary from “Rescue Me”
Being common to the three religions mentioned in no way validates the presence of these statues in a public building. Not even if they were being given to the city. Some people simply cannot get their heads around the fact rights are not matters of majority rule.
How much good could $850,000 do for police training and community outreach? This is nothing but a vanity project for the mayor. (There’s a certain irony in his name being Koch.) if anyone should pound sand, it’s him.
Aside from constitutional considerations, how can a project budget be changed like this without submitting a request with an explanation and financial justification? Who is monitoring the project budget throughout? When working with government grants, any requested change to a project/budget has to be clearly justified and approved by the grantor. How does the addition of $850,000 unconstitutional statues improve the facility or it's mission? What part(s) of the project had $850,000 diverted from the original plans? Aren't projects like this audited on a regular basis?
(Recovering catholic, here, so additionally triggered...)
I suspect that the project had a line for 'art' in the original budget. Many public buildings do.
But I have a different question - Quincy has got 100k inhabitants. The county has got approx 750k inhabitants. £175m strikes me as a very very very expensive facility.
Well, Michael the Archangel was the patron saint of the police. But times have changed. I believe the current patron saint of the police is universal surveillance with unsupervised violence and undercurrent of racism and no accountability. But I am not sure how you would make that into a statue.
Quiet as it’s been kept lately among the insanity of evangelicals, rabid Catholics like this are buoyed by the seeming acceptance of Christian symbolism and are quietly infiltrating into government everywhere. From having been seen as a papist conspiracy during JFKs election til now, look at the changes—primarily at the SCt where 6 of 9’justices are catholic. Hence the anti abortion decision.
If we are going to have church-state violations, it's probably actually good to have them coming from different sects. That helps bring it home to each sect that if they open this door, their own sect won't be the only ones who get to use it - that they may find someone else's religious beliefs will be imposed on them. It also makes it just a tad harder for religious judges to favor one sect over all others (and nones) without giving away their arbitrariness.
Sects, sects, sects! One track minds, the whole lot of them!
Many, if not most of the northern "Christian nationalists" are Catholics. They are all about war and inquisitions...
Don't forget killing as many women as possible in the most painful ways.
Never. The church's treatment of women is one of the first reasons I hated it.
I'd think the various sects of christianity who don't venerate saints would be aghast!
Each group of rabid religionistas view the other as useful in their quest to eradicate all non-Christians. When they have accomplished that, they will turn on each other.
Except for the fact we aren't going to let them eradicate us.
As long as they "own the libs" and shit on the Gays, what's a little transubstantiation/consubstantiation tolerance. 😉
About the only thing they're "owning" these days is their own stupidity. 😝
As Catholic as Massachusetts is in general (and Boston, especially), I'm not certain that I'm surprised at this action by the city of Quincy. That doesn't change the fact that they are using religious iconography in a public space, which clearly suggests if not blatantly shows an implied religious preference. Mayor Tom Koch should well and properly be called out on this action, and I appreciate Dan Minton's doing so publicly. I am also pleased to see that Americans United and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have gotten involved.
Once again, the camel is trying to poke its nose into the tent. Time go give his schnoz a good swat!
"Once again, the camel is trying to poke its nose into the tent. Time go give his schnoz a good swat!" I use this often. Once the camel gets his nose in... his ass will soon follow.
"Neither statue carries strictly religious messages, Koch said,"
"It might help them," he added. "They might say a little prayer before they go out on duty." -McCarthy
The Mayor and the Ward 1 Councilor need to get their stories straight.
"Neither statue carries strictly religious messages, Koch said,"
Oh, no ... not any more than the Bladensburg Cross did! 😝
Yeah, because an angel standing over a defeated demon is just so atheist [eye roll].
Well ... maybe the "demon" looks like an overweight former reality show host with a bad comb-over!
It's all about timing -- when to say the quiet part out loud.
𝐾𝑜𝑐ℎ 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑠 "𝑎𝑑𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡" 𝑎𝑛𝑑 "𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑢𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔." 𝐾𝑜𝑐ℎ, 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑐, 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑆𝑡. 𝑀𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑒𝑙 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑓𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝐼𝑠𝑙𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐽𝑢𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑚.
𝑁𝑒𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠, 𝐾𝑜𝑐ℎ 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑, 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦, 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒, 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑄𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑦'𝑠 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑦.
"𝐼𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠," ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑.
𝐼𝑓 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑦𝑚𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦 𝑗𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑛’𝑡 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑖𝑡’𝑠 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 “𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙.” 𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑖𝑓 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑏𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑒.
Indoctrination is one hell of a drug. Statues like these make up such an integral part of how he thinks that it is seemingly impossible for him to understand how such things can be offensive to anyone. When informed that there are indeed legitimate objections to religious iconography integrated into government services, he doubled down, basically claiming that no one will care once the statues are in place, implying that the objections themselves aren't real.
𝑀𝑎𝑦𝑜𝑟 𝐾𝑜𝑐ℎ 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑟𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑟.
Indeed.
Seems to me that $850,000 could go a LONG way toward enhancing the QPD's equipment and/or other elements that would make them more effective at their jobs.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOO! (with apologies to John Belushi!)
Send in DOGE! I see an easy $850k that could be cut from this government building contract!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh, Absolutely! And Musk will claim that they saved $853 BILLION, too!
Connect to the use of the building? Is there a church in there too? 🤔
It's like the defenders of the Confederate monument, on the local courthouse steps meant to intimidate, and it did. Luckily when they removed it, it got broken and is now even more worthless trash.
Time for a lawsuit to place that Baphomet statue at Quincy's new cop shop. It's not religious in nature. :)
Lucifer as patron saint of wildfire fighters! They often 'fight fire with fire' by burning out scrub and creating pre-burned firebreaks. So it would make zero sense for their patron saint to be someone who stops all fires. :)
Made me laugh!
Can I propose a picture of the flying spaghetti monster for the foyer?
Boreal mentioned the FSM hours after I posted this comment (Baphomet, too). :)
One can never have enough flying spaghetti monsters!
So, we'll have one in the foyer. And, what do you think one on each floor, just when you come out of the lifts? After all, if we are putting up stuff, let's do it properly.
(Isn't there a saying along those lines? A bit like that scene in Crocodile Dundee when that little scrote pulls out a knife. And Dundee responds 'that's not a knife, this is a knife' and pulls out his - much larger - knife. Go big or go home? Or what would they say in your area? (I love the variety of language!))
We'll get that building sorted out in no time!
Every deity mentioned in any version of the babble.
“Asked why the statues weren't shown to councilors when they approved funding for the project at various points between 2017 and 2022, Mayor Thomas Koch said large projects like this one sometimes "evolve" and the idea "wasn't on the table" when councilors cast their votes.”
So, the idea of the statues wasn’t conceived yet, but then…
“Ward 1 Councilor Dave McCarthy, whose district hosts the new headquarters, approved of the statues. McCarthy said he was informed of the plans "a long time ago."”
How long ago? Was it before the funding was approved? And if it was after, why didn’t the mayor have to get approval to include something that wasn’t part of the approval process before? Shouldn’t any changes, especially large expensive changes like this, be brought before the council for approval no matter their religious status? What if the mayor decided to change the layout, or add a strip club, or remove bathrooms? Wouldn’t he have to get approval for that, or can the plans just change completely once the approval for the thing is made? I know that in most cases, once plans are finalized and approved by governmental agencies, they take a shit ton of red tape to change even for minor adjustments for unforeseen circumstances, mislabeled pipes or a sudden sinkhole or stuff like that. People providing quotes can’t charge any more than they quoted no matter how much tariffs hike up prices. And then there’s the bidding process, you cannot just put your buddy on a project, they must go through the process and be chosen from multiple bidders.
This is corruption from top to bottom and it’s unconstitutional on its face.
An $850k add on a $175M project is a 0.5% add to project costs. If I were the project overseer, I frankly wouldn't go to a board/boss with that either. However, not all 0.5% cost increases are the same. This isn't like "the HVAC contractor called and revised their estimate," this increase comes with a new liability risk. THAT's why the mayor should have informed everyone. Because this change introduces a qualitatively new risk to the project. Not because it was a 'large expensive' change, because relative to the project, it really wasn't - it was budget dust, as the saying goes.
Government builds are different, all expenditures need some review. And it isn’t like this was a change in an approved system, like a revision to the HVAC system, it’s a complete addition to what was previously designed and approved. The religious nature of the addition is exactly why government projects have the micromanagement oversight they do have. Maybe not the whole board, but more than the one person making the decision to add the statues needs to be included. Even at 0.05% increase. The taxpayers don’t see the percentage anyway, but $850,000 is huge considering the income of most people in any community is a fraction of that. Not to mention every other aspect of the building required a bidding process, from the builder to the plumber to the landscaper, but the statue designer is just the mayor’s buddy. That’s corruption. Nothing about this is above board.
I do government builds. I have literally been in a room when the USG boss waved off the loss of tens of thousands of dollars (on a much larger contract) to a contractor that didn't deliver on budget, because that amount of money doesn't even really ping their radar. But I have also been in rooms where much smaller USG project expenditures were stopped dead in their tracks because the Privacy office and OGC advised that the added part of the plan was likely to result in lawsuits.
Thank you for adding this detail.
I suspect that there is a budget line somewhere in the specs for 'art' (most public buildings include some kind of art). I can also accept that the 'art' wasn't specified when the building was agreed, but that this was a later decision.
If the 'art' were something innocuous, then no-one would be upset. It's only because it is clearly religious iconography, that there is a stushie!
He’s just following his god Trump’s leadership method.
What Mayor Koch and his henchmen are doing is using taxpayer money [government] to promote catholicism at a government building. That's a black letter violation of the MA and US constitutions' religious establishment clauses. It also violates the rights of non-catholic, non-religious, or followers of different religions on the QPD as well as in the public.
The fact that this mayor refuses to back down in light of these clear violations and continues pushing HIS religion's iconography on a public building says that he thinks non-catholic officers and citizens are second-class and not worthy of respect by government. This ass needs to go.
The mayor should pay all court related charges (lawyers, fines, cost of demolishing the statues, etc) out of his own pocket.
If he wants statues, he should pay out of his pocket, and put them on his lawn.
Lawn is good. Donated statues for the building...don't suggest it.
1. The RCC will be there with the donation in a minute.
2. "Government's religiosity was paid for by donation" /= "Government doesn't establish religion".
“Look, just because I’m granting special privileges to this one religion to impose themselves on the public and add their exclusive iconography to public buildings and deny every other religion the same privileges, doesn’t mean that I’m endorsing that religion!”
Where the local birds can poop on 'em!
👆🎯
Won't happen, of course. He'll tap city funds to cover the tab ... but yeah, wouldn't THAT be nice!
👆🎯
No worries, Quincy has no poverty, hunger or homelessness that $850,000 could be used to address.
And Jesus said unto them: “Fuck off beggers and get a job. These statues are awesome.”
P'tite question. If this has a legal and historic precedent, why the secrecy ?
And here I thought the major* was proud of his faith. M'aurait-on menti ?
*Pain in the ass.
"Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."
-- John 3:20
I think this is something like "flying under the radar." 😝
Religious statues aren’t secular by nature. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make this any less true. Why not a statue of RoboCop and a painting of Denis Leary from “Rescue Me”
🙄
I'd like to see statues of Paul Blart: Mall Cop and Lt. Frank Drebin.
Barney Fife and..... Barney.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/32/f5/2f32f58d50f8c384f0b500a589b003ae.jpg
Frank? Miller? Rubble?
Thē Barney.
Was pretty sure you meant the purple dino. Just throwing in suggestions (sharing is caring, after all). ;)
Lol, even better
Being common to the three religions mentioned in no way validates the presence of these statues in a public building. Not even if they were being given to the city. Some people simply cannot get their heads around the fact rights are not matters of majority rule.
How much good could $850,000 do for police training and community outreach? This is nothing but a vanity project for the mayor. (There’s a certain irony in his name being Koch.) if anyone should pound sand, it’s him.
Aside from constitutional considerations, how can a project budget be changed like this without submitting a request with an explanation and financial justification? Who is monitoring the project budget throughout? When working with government grants, any requested change to a project/budget has to be clearly justified and approved by the grantor. How does the addition of $850,000 unconstitutional statues improve the facility or it's mission? What part(s) of the project had $850,000 diverted from the original plans? Aren't projects like this audited on a regular basis?
(Recovering catholic, here, so additionally triggered...)
I suspect that the project had a line for 'art' in the original budget. Many public buildings do.
But I have a different question - Quincy has got 100k inhabitants. The county has got approx 750k inhabitants. £175m strikes me as a very very very expensive facility.
Well, Michael the Archangel was the patron saint of the police. But times have changed. I believe the current patron saint of the police is universal surveillance with unsupervised violence and undercurrent of racism and no accountability. But I am not sure how you would make that into a statue.
A statue of a camera on one side, a drone on the other.
St. Gosh-I-don't-know-how-my-body-camera-turned-off with a big spear, slaying the evil multiheaded Internet monster under his foot.
Darn body cams, always failing just before the kind police officer does his best to treat a minority youth with respect and kindness.
Do I really need to put the sarcasm tag?
Nah! 😁
A camera, a burning book and her
https://images.app.goo.gl/97UiBV9xQgppcsSC8
Swap out Michael's face with Derek Chauvin's?
I’m okay with the statues as long as they are joined by Cthulhu, Baphomet and the FSM, otherwise no deal.
Imagine going into a police station and seeing a statue with the inscription:
"BPD: where YOU shall be eaten first!"
Oooh, how about "To protect and serve...YOU first!"
It's a cookbook!!!
"If you need religious icons to improve and beautify a $175 million facility, it’s time to fire the designers."
Intelligent design? Jesus really has fucked up this world. Stupid rules.
His own omnipotent design is so perfect he needed to create human intermediary saints to keep up with all the prayer requests!
But maybe that's just my parent's Lutheranism snarking...
'Fuhgiv me fadduh' for I have stated the obvious.
You even got the New Englander accent down. I am from Pra Vah Dence! 🤣
I didn't know you were Buddhist.
Nope! Apostate!