A Son of Liberty
Member

:rolleyes:

I do not advocate globalism and never have. That is a lie. You know it’s a lie. Yet you keep making the accusation. I won’t bother asking you to stop. I know how that would work out. I just wanted to point it out for anyone who might not already know how disingenuous you are.

Become Ungovernable

https://x.com/Babygravy9/status/1843193292193972566

Careful what you say there, Swordy. People might mistake you for an advocate of economic freedom rather than the prponent of socialistic central economic planning that you actually are!

Hmmmm….

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843393151656243680 & https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843393156769034602 SCOTUS’s VanDerStok Case Isn’t Just About Ghost Guns The justices are set to hear oral arguments in a challenge to the Biden administration’s ghost gun ban. If overturned, the ruling could have a chilling effect on federal regulators. https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/supreme-court-ghost-guns-kits-vanderstok/ {Alain Stephens | 07 October 2024} The U.S Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on October 8 to determine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped in effectively outlawing certain kits used to make homemade, untraceable ghost guns.

ETA: Beat me to it. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

https://x.com/Timcast/status/1843255567298773154 1843255567298773154 https://x.com/nbcsnl/status/1842778056781422660 1842778056781422660

The concept underlying the expression "1 + 1 = 2" is necessarily true for all people in all places at all times. The concept underlying the expression "Joe is a murderer" is not necessarily true for all people in all places at all times. All reasonable people, for all times and all places, must necessarily accept, accede to, and agree with the meaning expressed by the statement "1 + 1 = 2", regardless of whatever other particular set of symbols and system of nomenclature might be substituted at the "surface level" to denote the abstractions underlying the elements of the statement. IOW: It is always and everywhere unreasonable to reject the "ship" (i.e., the underlying meaning) of the expression "1 + 1 = 2", regardless of how the semantic deck chairs might be arranged. On the other hand, when it comes to normative and/or transcendental matters (such as those relating to the concepts of "law" and "crime"), reasonable people can and will disagree - on an essential level much more fundamental than the transient contingencies of mere symbols and nomenclature - about what "ought" to be, or about how such things "ought" to be understood. With regard to such matters, one can certainly adopt presuppositions and definitions such that - from within the context of those "axiomatic" elements - certain propositions must necessarily hold true. But other reasonable people who do not share those presuppositions and definitions will not necessarily be compelled to accept, accede to, or agree with those propositions (or the "axiomatic" elements from which they are derived). IOW: One cannot reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "1 + 1 = 2", but one might reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "Joe is a murderer". To put things in terms of Feynman's empirical/positive/non-normative discussion of magnetism, one cannot reasonably dispute that the opposite poles of magnets attract (regardless of what symbols, labels, and nomenclature one might arbitrarily adopt in order to describe or express the fact). The question of whether the opposite poles of magnets attract (and under what circumstances they might not) is an "objective" one, and is existentially bound up with the essential identity of "magnets" as distinct from other things - but the question of why they attract (in the sense in which Feynman means "why" in this particular instance) is not. To address the former question is to engage in "science" (specifically, "physics"). To address the latter question is to engage in "philosophy" (specifically, "metaphysics").

//

He never left - and apparently, he's never going to ... Migrant King Deported After Insulting Americans BUT Venezuela Says No Return. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmANBcMCGGs {Nate The Lawyer | 06 October 2024}

And sometimes, a cigar hurricane is just a cigar hurricane. Especially in the midst of hurricane season. No, that wouldn't be "crazy", either. File under "Crises, Never Letting Good Ones Go to Waste".

Live in about 5 hours: Super Mayor Board Meeting After Eviction & Massive Legal Loss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HSx9tvbwCQ {Nate The Lawyer | 07 October 2024} Dolton Board Meeting

Corrupt "Super Mayor" Goes FULL Ghetto TRASH https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewarrior:2/corrupt-super-mayor-goes-full-ghetto:f {Actual Justice Warrior | 07 October 2024} In this video I discuss the Super Mayor losing her mind at a Thorton Township board meeting after she inadvertently proposed an investigation into herself. Sources: Full Super Mayor Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLklYRErBEt_fh66U6iIlakqVGYz1cHanx Full Meeting: https://youtu.be/bi3RkgtIbzI

"Wouldn't it be crazy if one of the richest lithium deposits in the world was right outside of Asheville North Carolina?" Why would that be "crazy"? :confused: "Wouldn't it be crazy if the largest lithium mining company in the world 3 days before the flood began, submitted the permits for their mine right outside Asheville North Carolina?" Why would it be "crazy" for a company that mines stuff to submit permits to mine that stuff in a place where lots of that stuff is at? And how would it be any more "crazy" than if the permits had been applied for a week - or a month, or a year, or whatever - before the flood began? For that matter, how would it be any more "crazy" than if the the permits had been applied for a week - or a month, or a year, or whatever - after the flood began? If "3 days before" is "crazy", then at what point (before or after) would it not be "crazy"?

Touche!

Appreciate the effort but I already read the whole thing on twitter/x. A lovely piece of free verse. So inspiring. NOT.

That WAS moving, wasn’t it?

I can’t tell you how truly moved I was by this young man’s “poetry.” Or, to put it another way, why the fuck is that barely literate drivel being honored as “art”? SMGDH

When all else fails, resort to an appeal to authority. Seems to me I’ve seen you yourself denounce that quite a few times. Curious.

Hold on… Waiyt a second here. Let me re-read what I wrote… Mmmhmmm, yes, I see. After carefully re-reading my comments above, and applying just a rudimentary understanding if the English language, it’s obvious by the syntax and context that my words were directed, not at you personally, but at you own comments. So, whatever else they may or may not be, my words certainly ARE NOT ad hominem.

“I know you are but what am I?” That’s the best you got? ROTFLMFAO!!!!11

Your first two sentences are pure speculation with absolutely no factual data to support them. Your last comment is just pure bullshit. But you already know that.

Now he’s praising the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909? I wonder if he knows that Sen. Nelson W. Aldrich was the very guy who organized the covert meeting on Jekyll Island that gave birth to the Federal Reserve Act? But I’m sur Aldrich had nothing but the best interests of the average American in mind when he helped craft that tariff act. Certainly there couldn’t have been any other motive from a stand-up guy like Aldrich, right? ETA: Aldrich was, in fact, the father in law of old John D. Rockefeller himself. Future vice president Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, his grandson, was actually named after him. At the time Aldrich was well known as a “Rockefeller man” in congress. He represented not his actual constituents but the Rockefeller financial empire. IIRC his reputation among real conservatives and liberty loving Americans was so bad that his involvement with the Federal Reserve Act had to be carefully concealed lest that revelation doom the bill’s chances. As I recall, he even pretended to oppose the bill in a successful effort to dupe enough Americans to go along with it to get it passed. He was a globalist, progressive scumbag and NOTHING he was ever involved in, including the tariff act bearing his name, was good for America or its people.

At best he’ll start quoting from Ian Fletcher’s book about how great tariffs are and how horrible free trade is. What he WON’T tell you is that Fletcher is actually on the board of a group called the Coalition For A Prosperous America, a lobbying group for a bunch of rent seeking corporations and industries seeking to enrich themselves unjustly at the expense of American consumers through tariffs and trade restrictions. Fletcher is nothing but a shill lobbyist and his book is just pro-protectionist propaganda. But you didn’t really expect any better, did you?

Hurricanes during hurricane season? ZOMG!1!! It's a plot! :eek: :rolleyes:

Is that even a real picture? It seems a bit uncanny. It looks like the helicopter is floating just above the water. And if it's not, why would they land in such a spot?

As I understand it ending the fed is on his agenda, immediately following eliminating world hunger, ending poverty and curing cancer. Give the guy a break! He can’t do EVERYTHING all at once you know.