nobody's_hero
Member

Texas to the Mayor of NYC:

The left will keep it on life support as they are trying to do with favorable articles on Liz Cheney. About how she is such a principled republican, one of the few who will work across the aisle, blah blah blah.

Aside from schmoozing all over Trump, I'm glad to see the McCain legacy is eroding in Arizona.

Well, I wasn't gonna name any names here, but I remember the_Count loved to point out that my pillow guy was a grifter, meanwhile big Pharma and MIC grift billions and billions into their wallets. Never mind that though, I guess? Like Mike Lindell is trying to make a quick buck and . . . everyone else isn't? Like if I was keeping tabs on who is funding who, a guy who makes bedroom slippers and towels wouldn't be anywhere near the top of that list. We know the best advertisers that ever approach someone who wants to expose the truth are gonna be your B-list -type ads. Vitamins, survival food, and pillows. You ain't getting Coca Cola to run an ad on your channel, sorry.

I don't know, but reckon we could stop making fun of people for their advertisers? *Not specific to Alex Jones* but I mean, you don't suppose they get first-dibs on who funds them, do you? I get tired of 'survival food' advertisements on most of the independent journalists I watch, but I mean, hell, it isn't like Lockheed Martin is going to be supporting them. Same with My Pillow guy Mike Lindell. He's the go-to advertiser because Pfizer doesn't seem interested in supporting freelance journalists, for some odd reason.

Same with Stacy Abrams in Georgia. I'll give it to the GA GOP, there was at least a selection. Some races had a half dozen or more candidates running, but voter apathy during the primaries is a tough nut to crack. Then lo and behold everybody wants to b*tch and moan about how our choices suck in November. Well, it's not like the primaries are kept secret. People say they want a 3rd party— well don't bother if you don't give a sh*t who makes it through the primary, I say.

Sure would be nice if democrats cared who made it to the top of their tickets. I confess I was going to vote for Tulsi in the GA primary in 2020 because out of all the dem candidates she seemed to be the only one who would dare to criticize Hillary and live to tell about it. However my calculated risk was based on who I thought was the 'best' alternative to Trump if the democrats won, not the worst. (this is comparing democrats to democrats, of course, I still probably wouldn't have voted for Tulsi in the general election but I think she would have been much more sufferable than what we have now) Me waiting on democrats to rise up against the establishment on their side:

I always thought if this were really about maintaining 'muh roads', it would be weight-based. This is true.

I would think so. Would Jimmy invite Thomas to be on the show?

Probably just regular old wrong-think lockdowns AKA gulags.

The only reason I have a handgun is so I can get to my rifle. In a situation that I am unable to get to my rifle I will make-do with a handgun (as in when I am in public and it's generally unwise to keep a gun-rack with merchandise on display in the truck window anymore, so unfortunately it stays at home), but if I had a preference it would always be my rifle. My rifle just doesn't fit in my bedside table drawer.

Trump can't even admit that he was wrong to have Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx as part of his COVID response team, not to mention that he was seriously in error for rushing vaccines through his treacherous "Operation Warp Speed."

The problem is people like Howard Dean are playing to the ignorance of their voting base because abortions haven't been banned in the states where Democrats are in control. In fact, in my current state, we're receiving the abortion clinics which have been expelled from nearby conservative states, so abortions will be more available in my state within the coming year, which is an absolute atrocity. The fact that so many rank-and-file Democrats are ignorant of the actual effects of the Roe v. Wade overturn and are willing to be manipulated into thinking it's a "women's rights" issue is despicable.

Better question, why are we selling China oil and then acting like we're opposed to them? 'I hate you so much . . . .I wanna give you a deal on some oil that belongs to American taxpayers. We go to war though I'm gonna need it back.'

I can tell you the banks probably don't care about squatters in foreclosure situations. Not exactly a squatter issue, but we had a case years ago when I was a vol firefighter where an evicted (previous) homeowner tried 3 times to set her former home on fire after the bank foreclosed. The third time was the charm, and we got called out late at night to a house fully engulfed in flames. (she eventually learned it takes more than a rag and a gas can on the back porch to set the house ablaze). It wasn't like no one saw it coming, but they couldn't pin it on her, though there were various indicators that she was the likely culprit (it wasn't exactly a peaceful eviction). I don't really know what happened to her if she was every found guilty or even if they managed to find enough evidence to arrest her, but the bank probably just wrote it off. This was around 2008/09 when banks holding houses that continued to depreciate in value was a liability.

$330K for a home built in the 1940s located in one of the biggest s#^thole liberal cities in America is a shoddy deal without even considering the squatter issue. It just amazes me that there are so many legal protections for squatters. No value at all placed on property rights, unless you are a bum, then possession becomes 9.99/ tenths of the law.

It would make sense if not for the apportionment from the states being essentially done away with. We funded our federal government without the IRS for a long time before it existed. (Of course, the scope of the Federal government was much more limited in accordance with the Constitution until then). The states wrote the check though. They got the money from the people but the buck stopped with the states. I do agree though that abolishing the IRS is nigh impossible. First you'd have to get rid of the bureaucrats that fuel and perpetuate the 'need' for it and they're pretty much permanent fixtures in D.C.

I predicted in 2020 when Biden 'won' that he will be replaced shortly after the first two years. That potentially opens Kamala for nearly 10 years of presidency if she takes over from Biden and finishes his term, but only if it is done after the midway point of a 4 year presidential term. I expect Biden to be replaced sometime next spring. Kamala hasn't really acted like she wants to be VP so I'm thinking she will do poorly as a president but that probably doesn't matter much to the people pulling the strings as long as she just signs where they tell her to.

If my stance on immigration is influenced by anything, it was the words of T. Jefferson. This is quite honestly what I worry about the most. Sure, you will argue that we're already beyond the point of salvaging any remnant of the constitutional republic which the nation was founded on, or the guiding principles of liberty that inspired it. But as a practical matter, Jefferson is fairly well vindicated on this, as you can see it happening in the present times on an internal level via state-to-state migration. IOW, today's scenario: 'Suppose 20 million marxist Californians were thrown all of a sudden into Texas.' So if you think I just woke up one morning and tuned into Fox News and swiftly became disillusioned with open borders because the left is for it, that's not the case, and perhaps it would behoove you not to assume everyone is incapable of an original conclusion besides yourself.

Look, the point of this thread is that when the rubber meets the road, people who will sanctimoniously claim to be in favor of open-door immigration will panic like squirrel on an L.A. freeway when they actually have to deal with the fallout first-hand. I see no reason to plant my flag over this. It's just a matter of fact that has been exposed thanks to this experimental policy of shipping immigrants to blue areas instead of just taking it up the butt whenever liberals want to flood the red states to change the political landscape. Liberals say they want open borders when in actuality they have no plan for how to deal with tired, hungry, huddled masses. Even if it is only 4,000 of them out of 3+ million. IF there was a way to make people pay directly, personally for the costs associated with rampant immigration, I would fully support it because they might change their tune on our current free-for-all welfare as well. But alas, this will have to do for now. The best plumber in the world still turns off the water before fixing the pipe. Let's start by turning off the water.

Sounds like he needs to be voted out. But you don't vote, so just magic his *ss out of there lol ;)

PAF So you're not going to volunteer to take on a busload then? I mean if you're confident that your theory is sound, it should be no problem to put it into practice. I'm curious to see how an agorist society handles a horde of people showing up on their doorsteps with no means, or even desire, to support themselves.

So basically, you're advocating that we do nothing and just hope the problem works itself out. Since you don't seem to have a plan to actually defund the welfare state, you're kind of in the same boat. By the way, the proponents of immigration controls actually called this a long time ago. Immigration will be left uncontrolled until it becomes a crisis, to usher in an even greater degree of statist powers. Build a wall at the border, and you won't have to build one in your hometown. (and no I don't think the wall is necessarily a great idea, it's just the best one that seemed to get any traction). And if you think it's "getting worse", keep in mind that nearly every immigration policy up until this point has been decisively in favor of the pro-open borders argument. You can't really blame people who want immigration control for the situation we're facing because they only actually had a president who tried to do anything at all about it for 4 years out of . . . . On the other hand, if unrelenting immigration actually led to increased prosperity and freedom as you theorize, I think we'd have seen evidence of it by now. Best do the noble thing and volunteer your address to Abbott so he can send a busload your way.

Not sure about that first one. Unless you happen to have 535 spare politicians ready to take office in November and dismantle the welfare state. Wait you don't even do politics anymore, so how exactly do you propose to defund it all? magic? Wait for a collapse? and when you have millions of desperate, impoverished people in times of chaos just . . . cross your fingers that nothing worse will fill the void, I guess? We won't need to build shelters, we will send them to where they are 'supposedly' welcome. And when it is proven to be a bold-faced lie that the democrats actually want them in their neighborhoods, we'll expose some hypocrisy while we're at it. I am a big advocate of people actually having to suffer from the policies they endorse.

Figures people would change their tune when it shows up in their backyard. Quick! to the gated communities of northern Virginia all ye bureaucrats.

This sounds like the Lincoln Project in a way. Establishmentarians trying to divert voters back to 'pretty' candidates with no real substance.

That is actually my first thought when I see polls that show dems having a chance, much less leading. Just padding the polls a bit to make the planned outcome more logical.

I kinda wish Madison Cawthorn had won his primary. He bold-faced called the situation in Ukraine for what it is. Yeah he was an immature idiot but that goes back to what I was saying that there are only a handful of politicians who will speak truth to power and we can't just look for the pretty electable ones. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.