cajuncocoa
Banned

All action, no bullshit. He's the man. Glad you and WP are hanging in there.

No...that would be the "new" bill or rather new law that you posted. Why do you question that?

See how much more adult and civil that is than, unhappy lad, get that twist out of your knickers?

THIS! I am not sure if Phil is up to making another relief run next weekend, and it's looking like he'd have to go to FL this time, but I will talk to him some time today and see if he's making another trip. In the meantime, the Capt. is right, stay far away from those "mainstream" leftist charities. Samaritan's Purse is doing good work and is based in NC A Trump sponsored "GoFundMe" started with a $1 million goal, it has already surpassed $6.5 million.

A civil and adult conversation tends to avoid a paternalistic tone. Try to tell me that you've never once in your life bridled at such an elementary suggestion and I'll happily call you a liar. The funny thing is, you've participated in the thread. You've critiqued my own answers to that question you think I haven't asked. You know I've asked myself that question. Have for months. As we age and our memories get weaker, it's wise of us to pause and consider that we can no longer be certain people haven't already tried our suggestions -- and we already know they have (at least on a good day). They call things like that aging gracefully. And such habits make all conversation more civil. Some consider it the very difference between conversing with and preaching at.

A handy object lesson for those who refuse to believe Israel and its stooges can really be so hypocritical as to blithely say the opposite of what their bosses really want. https://x.com/AmazingZoltan/status/1842335994353537460 1842335994353537460 It's called a psyop, kids.

There's no mousetrap like a hunter/seeker mousetrap with non-artificial intelligence and a highly sensitive sensory array. They're decorative, too. And affectionate.

I'd rather ask what makes you presume I haven't. Especially when I have a multiple page thread full of my speculation on that very subject on this very site. What's more, I think mine makes more sense. It's based on historical precedent -- a number of them, but particularly the Biennio Rosso, which brought Mussolini to power.

Commerce and trade in limited quantities is good. But when you start trading for things that you should (as a responsible adult, and/or nation) be producing yourself, that's when it starts doing more harm than good. If you inherit a fully functional corn farm from your grandparents, it would be extremely irresponsible to sell off the farm, spend your cash on hookers and coke, and then take on debt so you can afford corn to feed yourself with. That is what we have done as a nation, and that is what modern trade has taken the form of.

You are correct that in the last 400 years it has grown exponentially. Which then arrives at my point: the trade we have today is quantitatively and qualitatively different than anything we have seen in the past. The quantity is obviously much higher and the nature is similarly much different. In the past, international economic competitive advantage was largely based on regional abundances of raw materials. Today, international economic competitive advantage is largely based on differences in labor costs. It was never historically feasible to save money on labor by getting it built 6,000 miles away and then transporting it. It is far too early to say that trade is "good" for the economy. There are scenarios where trade is provably bad for an economy.* It also depends on how you define "the economy". If your interest is the economic outcome of the world as a whole, then yes, global trade is economically a good thing. If your interest is the economic outcome of your local economy, then no, it's not quite as clear as that (as proven in the scenario). It may very well be the case that modern trade, being based on short-term differences in labor costs vs other forms of economic advantage, is overall a detriment to a local economy. Even if we do accept that trade is an overall economic good, that still does not make it however an overall net good. There are cultural, sovereignty, and security costs that come at potentially a heavy price with full global economic integration. * (Scenario referenced above is at this link: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?566808-Tariffs-Are-A-War-On-American-Consumers&p=7231881&viewfull=1#post7231881)

It gets worse as you get older. The bitching focuses on you, until you become, what once was her whole world, the man who lit up her life, and gave her butterflies in her stomach, a senile stupid old fool who has single handedly fucked up every single thing in the world.

Democrats are not trying to throw an election. They are trying to destroy a country and doing a damn good job of it. The reason they have gone so far "over the top" is they reckon they have, or are just on the cusp of having, a majority of the voting public that agree. And they are probably right, between Marxists, women and migrants, they probably have a winning combination.

Tell me it's the Jews, without telling me it's the Jews. https://x.com/i/status/1781335247436591270 1781335247436591270

The city of Portland is less than 70 percent white.

I can not accomplish anything of any great deal, until I can drill into white people's heads that they are not the bad guys, they are not the enemy, they are not the ones committing mass shootings, they should not loathe themselves, they should unite and fight for their interests. I can only do that by presenting facts of the world around us, that has committed itself to exterminating my people.

Oh, on his "...if you suspend the Constitution and appoint Me Dictator For Life" agenda. Forty More Years! Remember, before he does anything else he's got to build the FBI a yuge, beeautyful new palace before they try to shoot him again! That'll probably eat up the entirety of his first Next Four Years all by itself. I mean, we already know he will screw us all to save his own hide. SS already told us about several instances where he already did. We're going to be hearing a lot more, "The Prime Alpha Male had to do that because he was afeared of Hitlery's Suicide Squad!!" out of the Trumpscuse Brigade before we're through.

Everything is subjective without an agreed upon framework of context. 1+1=2 is not objectively true without an agreed upon context. Superficially, the context required for that is the meaning of symbols, letters. Less superficially, the context requires an agreement of what constitutes identity. This context onion can be stripped further and further until there remains no objective context; it simply is what it is because we have agreed that it is as it is and we have no further means of proving or testing it. (See: Feynman's explanation of magnetism) Similarly, a properly developed "dictionary project" absolutely could be objectively tested - within an agreed upon context. This could look similar to a programming language. Programming languages work objectively within the context for which they are defined (namely: the selected compiler, and further, the bitwise operations at a hardware level). If you were to define "law" and "crime" within a framework that allows it to be tested, then yes, it can be tested. And yes that is circular. All of scientific testing is inevitably circular - it all exists within an untestable framework that allows it be tested.

Keep it up...keep pushing.

Why, yes, the Democrats really are purposely trying to lose this election.