PDA

View Full Version : With a Clothespin Affixed to My Nose…




Anti Federalist
11-07-2018, 09:08 PM
With a Clothespin Affixed to My Nose…

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2018/11/06/with-a-clothespin-affixed-to-my-nose/

By eric - November 6, 2018

I just voted – not for anything, but against everything the political Left is determined to impose on everyone. From forcing everyone to tithe to the insurance mafia (or the government, it makes no difference to the person being mulcted) to the intellectual AIDS of elevating certain infantile, disturbed and dangerous people’s feelings to the same stature as facts.

Genug, already.

It is enough.

Where to start?

Like a lot of white guys, I like women – all kinds. And I have no issue with guys (all kinds) who like other guys. Or women who like other women. Or both. Whatever you’re into is cool with me – and I think also with most white guys – provided you leave us (and our wallets) out of it. That you don’t insist we avow to you that it’s all just fabulous and you don’t point guns at us and expect us to pay for your aberrations.

I certainly don’t expect anyone else to pay for mine.

Genug already with all the “racist” shaming over disagreeing with you, too.

Most white guys do not wear white robes – nor do they want to, either. They have no secret desire to keep anyone down. They just object to having their pockets emptied, their motives maligned – and their freedom to be left the hell alone assaulted.

This includes being free to not associate – for whatever reason; it’s really no one else’s business unless you take the position that you have the right to force other people to deal with you when they’d rather not – which is a very odd concept, especially for Leftists to espouse given that they insist straight white men must only deal with women at their pleasure, on their terms and only when they have explicit (written, even) permission.

Otherwise, they are – says the Leftie – to bugger off.

White heterosexual men men are portrayed as villains for things they’ve never done, by people determined to do lots of villainous things to them.

Genug with this noxious, hypocritical cognitive dissonance.

The Left doesn’t like walls – or guns – except when the walls and guns are protecting them. There is a wall of guns around every Leftward politician, so clearly it is neither thing the Left actually objects to; rather, their objection is to people other than those on the Left (the leadership of the Left) having or using such things.

Genug, again.

I have no issue with immigration. As a Libertarian, I accept – and endorse, liberty of movement. But it is not liberty of movement which the Left is literally screaming about.

Rather, it is the expansion of their client base.

As Monty used to say, let’s make a deal. Would the Left agree to a policy that opened the borders but closed the spigot? Zero tax increases to fund any further expansion of the entitlements now richly available to all who apply, immigrants included? Would the Left – all of them – agree that any needs which arise – for example, multi-lingual teachers or just more teachers at government schools – will be met entirely by themselves, since they want the border opened? And claim there will no effect on the taxpayer’s pocket?

This would not be technically difficult. A plebiscite could be held. Those who vote yes would have their names appended to a special tax registry – to be called upon in the event a need arises.

No me gusta?

Interesting . . .

There is also this noxious business of the electric car – being literally crammed down our gullets when there is no need, because there is no market. The Left may just be dull enough to accept at face value the various idiocies about how EVs will save the planet but others not as dull have come to realize it is a shibboleth and the real agenda is to restrict and control mobility.

Ours, that is.

The various Left office-seekers will not be riding in armored electric Teslas.

Besides which, I have come to a somewhat initially begrudged but now open affection for The Orange One, who has done more to drive the Left to carpet-chewing hysteria than a six-pack of Richard Nixons. The show alone is worth it and I’d like for it to go on for as long as possible.

Which is why I roused myself to vote.

I hope it counts.

r3volution 3.0
11-07-2018, 09:13 PM
I just voted – not for anything, but against everything the political Left is determined to impose on everyone.

If that means you voted Libertarian, or wrote in H. L. Mencken, you did fine.

On the other hand, if it means you voted for the tribe of communists whose totem animal is an elephant, you're the problem.

...or half of it, anyway.

Origanalist
11-07-2018, 09:14 PM
Although I didn't vote, I must admit muh rectum puckered a bit thinking there was going to be a 'blue wave'.

Anti Federalist
11-07-2018, 09:28 PM
Although I didn't vote, I must admit muh rectum puckered a bit thinking there was going to be a 'blue wave'.

Yah, I am honest enough to admit that I am glad it was a blue trickle.

acptulsa
11-07-2018, 09:43 PM
Yeah, I didn't care. On the one hand, libs don't need any encouragement. On the other, D.C. needs all the gridlock it can get.

A loss in the House and a gain in the Senate was probably the best we could hope for.

Swordsmyth
11-07-2018, 09:59 PM
Yeah, I didn't care. On the one hand, libs don't need any encouragement. On the other, D.C. needs all the gridlock it can get.

A loss in the House and a gain in the Senate was probably the best we could hope for.
Gridlock never works in our favor, the Dems and RINOs drag out bipartisanship whenever they want to do something horrible and use gridlock as an excuse to not do anything good.

TheTexan
11-07-2018, 10:26 PM
Good for Eric. It brings joy to my heart to see even anarchists enjoying all the blissful satisfaction that voting day has to offer.

acptulsa
11-08-2018, 12:38 AM
Gridlock never works in our favor, the Dems and RINOs drag out bipartisanship whenever they want to do something horrible and use gridlock as an excuse to not do anything good.

Somehow I just knew I'd find you had berated me for favoring gridlock.

Washington, D.C. doesn't seem to need excuses to do nothing good. They never do anything good. Never. It never gets better. Ever. The only time it fails to get worse is during gridlock.

Hang onto your granny panties. I love federal government shutdowns. I love them. They make me feel warm and fuzzy from head to toe.

nobody's_hero
11-08-2018, 01:03 AM
Doesn't seem quite right rewarding people who burn college campuses, block traffic and vandalize cars as they go by, beat up old people, shout down and outright ban free speech, spend 24 hours a day lying in the media, and then have the gall to play the victim card.


America gave in and bought the candy bar for the kid throwing a temper tantrum in the checkout line. Great parenting.

TheCount
11-08-2018, 05:50 AM
Proof that fear mongering works.

Working Poor
11-08-2018, 06:19 AM
Gridlock never works in our favor, the Dems and RINOs drag out bipartisanship whenever they want to do something horrible and use gridlock as an excuse to not do anything good.

I think grid lock is the best thing that can possibly happen. Nothing they do in DC is good for the people. I don't want those critters to get anything done. What they ought to be doing is rescinding every unconstitutional law.

shakey1
11-08-2018, 06:37 AM
As I've said before, the less politicians are able to do, the less damage they're likely to do.

acptulsa
11-08-2018, 07:42 AM
I think grid lock is the best thing that can possibly happen. Nothing they do in DC is good for the people. I don't want those critters to get anything done. What they ought to be doing is rescinding every unconstitutional law.

Strange how someone can be such a total GOP partisan hack, yet not agree with Ronald Reagan.


The most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

It's enough to make a person a mite suspicious.

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 01:02 PM
Strange how someone can be such a total GOP partisan hack, yet not agree with Ronald Reagan.



It's enough to make a person a mite suspicious.


I think grid lock is the best thing that can possibly happen. Nothing they do in DC is good for the people. I don't want those critters to get anything done. What they ought to be doing is rescinding every unconstitutional law.

It is primarily things that need to be undone that won't happen and plenty of bad things will happen.

CaptUSA
11-08-2018, 01:18 PM
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php

93% of House incumbents won. That's better than the 97% in 2016, but still sucks.

Until these numbers get down into the 50's, things are gonna stay bad.

Don't vote for the party. Ever. Unless there is the rare liberty candidate on the ballot, always vote against the incumbent.

AuH20
11-08-2018, 01:23 PM
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php

93% of House incumbents won. That's better than the 97% in 2016, but still sucks.

Until these numbers get down into the 50's, things are gonna stay bad.

Don't vote for the party. Ever. Unless there is the rare liberty candidate on the ballot, always vote against the incumbent.

Term limits please. Riggleman alluded to this today.

acptulsa
11-08-2018, 01:28 PM
Term limits please. Riggleman alluded to this today.

I hate to think we need to throw the good ones out after a couple of terms to be rid of the bad ones. But a few years ago, Congress had an 18% favorable approval rating among voters and only 18% of the bums were thrown out. If that's the best voters can do, throwing the babies out with the bathwater starts looking pretty good.

CaptUSA
11-08-2018, 01:43 PM
Term limits please. Riggleman alluded to this today.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of term limits. I hate to think Amash or Massie would be thrown out simply because their time is up, but I understand the impulse.

The real way to limit terms is to quit voting for people that don't represent you. Instead, you keep voting for "the lesser of two evils".

acptulsa
11-08-2018, 01:57 PM
I'd rather take a page from the playbook of the War on Tobacco and outlaw political advertising.

I remember when it was illegal for Big Pharma to advertise their wares. Seems to me repealing that law led to nothing but trouble.

Certainly campaign advertising budgets give the media one hell of an incentive to promote the candidate who got the most bribes campaign contributions.

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 01:58 PM
Term limits please. Riggleman alluded to this today.


I hate to think we need to throw the good ones out after a couple of terms to be rid of the bad ones. But a few years ago, Congress had an 18% favorable approval rating among voters and only 18% of the bums were thrown out. If that's the best voters can do, throwing the babies out with the bathwater starts looking pretty good.
The enemy has an unlimited supply of empty suits, we can barely find a few good men, term limits would destroy any possibility of restoring liberty.

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 02:00 PM
I'd rather take a page from the playbook of the War on Tobacco and outlaw political advertising.

I remember when it was illegal for Big Pharma to advertise their wares. Seems to me repealing that law led to nothing but trouble.

Certainly campaign advertising budgets give the media one hell of an incentive to promote the candidate who got the most bribes campaign contributions.
Killing freedom of speech is a good idea?

If you ban political speech the incumbents will never lose.

Please keep exposing yourself like this.

acptulsa
11-08-2018, 02:03 PM
Killing freedom of speech is a good idea?

If you ban political speech the incumbents will never lose.

Please keep exposing yourself like this.

Paid commercials are not free speech. Free speech happens when free people converse.

Only a corporate tool calls paid messages "free" speech--especially in an era when individual political donations are strictly limited but for corporations, the sky is the limit. Please keep exposing yourself like this.

heavenlyboy34
11-08-2018, 02:24 PM
Paid commercials are not free speech. Free speech happens when free people converse.

Only a corporate tool calls paid messages "free" speech--especially in an era when individual political donations are strictly limited but for corporations, the sky is the limit. Please keep exposing yourself like this.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/47/d3/e1/47d3e180cfe792d2e07bb072aa810d80.jpg

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 02:52 PM
Paid commercials are not free speech. Free speech happens when free people converse.

Only a corporate tool calls paid messages "free" speech--especially in an era when individual political donations are strictly limited but for corporations, the sky is the limit. Please keep exposing yourself like this.
You are an idiot, paid commercials are no different than a printing press or a bull horn, they are a tool to spread speech to a wider audience, the press is specifically protected in the 1stA and the principle applies to all speech tools.

I asked you to keep exposing yourself but I never expected you would cooperate so well.

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 02:53 PM
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/47/d3/e1/47d3e180cfe792d2e07bb072aa810d80.jpg

So the big bad anarchist wants gooberment to limit speech? LOL

Paid commercials are no different than a printing press or a bull horn, they are a tool to spread speech to a wider audience, the press is specifically protected in the 1stA and the principle applies to all speech tools.

acptulsa
11-08-2018, 03:12 PM
You are an idiot...

Where did you get this immunity from site guidelines again?


...paid commercials are no different than a printing press or a bull horn, they are a tool to spread speech to a wider audience, the press is specifically protected in the 1stA and the principle applies to all speech tools.

There is a difference. Printing presses were a known factor to the framers of the Constitution; television commercials were not. Printing presses were owned by individuals who had to answer to their communities; television stations are almost universally owned by international conglomerates who answer only to international stockholders, international conglomerate advertisers and internationally downed cable companies. And here's the key: Press is protected by the First, but the press' right to get paid by the very candidates they are supposed to be regarding impartially most definitely is not.

Buying influence is or has been closely regulated in many aspects of this society. Hell, Congress has been known to investigate when sports referees and radio deejays take payola. Yet you tell me the press isn't free unless it can be paid by the very politicians it should be speaking about factually and without bias?

Cute.

I'll tell you what the only difference is between sports umpires taking bribes and the media getting paid by political candidates, if you want to know. Sports teams don't get the sole authority to investigate themselves and set their own rules. Politicians do.


I asked you to keep exposing yourself but I never expected you would cooperate so well.

My pleasure. Oh, and since when is an anarchist less of an anarchist for believing that when elections are held against his will, the unwanted government conducting them should maintain some standards?

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 03:19 PM
Where did you get this immunity from site guidelines again?
The same place you and everybody else seem to get it from.




There is a difference. Printing presses were a known factor to the framers of the Constitution; television commercials were not. Printing presses were owned by individuals who had to answer to their communities; television stations are almost universally owned by international conglomerates who answer only to international stockholders, international conglomerate advertisers and internationally downed cable companies. And here's the key: Press is protected by the First, but the press' right to get paid by the very candidates they are supposed to be regarding impartially most definitely is not.

Buying influence is or has been closely regulated in many aspects of this society. Hell, Congress has been known to investigate when sports referees and radio deejays take payola. Yet you tell me the press isn't free unless it can be paid by the very politicians it should be speaking about factually and without bias?

Cute.

Progressive nonsense, people own presses, TV stations etc. and they have a right to sell their services, other people have a right to buy their services to enhance their speech, even politicians have a right to speak.



My pleasure. Oh, and since when is an anarchist less of an anarchist for believing that when elections are held against his will, the unwanted government conducting them should maintain some standards?
Whenever he calls for the government to do anything at all and doubly so when he calls for government to restrict a fundamental right.

You leftarians have no more principles than your totalitarian brethren, you talk a good game but whenever you don't like something your belief in liberty flies out the window.

acptulsa
11-08-2018, 03:29 PM
Progressive nonsense, people own presses, TV stations etc. and they have a right to sell their services, other people have a right to buy their services to enhance their speech, even politicians have a right to speak.

So when foreign nationals walk across our borders you figure they have no rights, but when they buy Comcast stock you figure they buy every right to brainwash us? Whose principles just went out the window?

You talk awfully blithely about 'enhanced speech'. I suppose you disagree with Jefferson's belief that a vigorous free press is necessary to the functioning of a republic? Or do you figure what he meant was those politicians with the most money should be able to make the press the most vigorous?


The same place you and everybody else seems to get it from.

Nobody on this forum has ever had the level of immunity from the rules we see from you.

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 03:39 PM
So when foreign nationals walk across our borders you figure they have no rights,
They do have rights but coming here and not being shot in the act of invasion aren't among them.


but when they buy Comcast stock you figure they buy every right to brainwash us?
They have every right to speak whether you call it brainwashing or not.


Whose principles just went out the window?
Yours.


You talk awfully blithely about 'enhanced speech'. I suppose you disagree with Jefferson's belief that a vigorous free press is necessary to the functioning of a republic? Or do you figure what he meant was those politicians with the most money should be able to make the press the most vigorous?
He meant government was to keep its hands off the press, if the market fails to provide a diverse press government won't help, it will instead make a permanent monopoly.

There are other problems that concentrate wealth and power in too few hands but government regulation of speech will just be used by those same people to make it worse.

heavenlyboy34
11-08-2018, 03:42 PM
You leftarians have no more principles than your totalitarian brethren, you talk a good game but whenever you don't like something your belief in liberty flies out the window.

When you say dumb shit like this, it's apparent that you don't actually pay attention to what he's saying in this thread or in any other thread. Just FYI.

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 03:45 PM
When you say dumb $#@! like this, it's apparent that you don't actually pay attention to what he's saying in this thread or in any other thread. Just FYI.
It's apparent you don't know what you are talking about.

Tell us more about how the government should regulate speech Mr. Anarchist.

RJ Liberty
11-08-2018, 04:42 PM
You leftarians have no more principles than your totalitarian brethren, you talk a good game but whenever you don't like something your belief in liberty flies out the window.

Tulsa was talking about politicians buying influence by paying to have their "free speech" broadcast. He wasn't talking about limiting free speech, but on limiting the buying of influence:



Buying influence is or has been closely regulated in many aspects of this society. Hell, Congress has been known to investigate when sports referees and radio deejays take payola. Yet you tell me the press isn't free unless it can be paid by the very politicians it should be speaking about factually and without bias?

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 04:49 PM
Tulsa was talking about politicians buying influence by paying to have their "free speech" broadcast. He wasn't talking about limiting free speech, but on limiting the buying of influence:
He was talking about banning political ads and he has endorsed McCain-Feingold in another thread, that is restricting free speech.

If he wants bribes investigated that is fine but useless there are too many legal ways to buy influence, the solution is less government not more.

acptulsa
11-08-2018, 05:15 PM
He was talking about banning political ads and he has endorsed McCain-Feingold in another thread, that is restricting free speech.

If he wants bribes investigated that is fine but useless there are too many legal ways to buy influence, the solution is less government not more.

Congratulations. You fell right in line with the Bush appointees.

Your RINO street credit remains unblemished.

Swordsmyth
11-08-2018, 05:24 PM
Congratulations. You fell right in line with the Bush appointees.

Your RINO street credit remains unblemished.
Keep spouting leftist nonsense and supporting government control of speech, the few people taken in by your nonsense will diminish until only your fellow trolls pay attention to you.