A Son of Liberty
Member

I agree that executing homosexuals qua homosexuals is a grotesque abomination and a violation of human rights. But I have no need to use a virtue-signaling hashtag when saying so. Why does Ted Cruz? "Conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit" -- Michael Malice https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1663301805726392322

//

Believe them when they tell you ... "Number one: we need to stop drilling for fossil fuels completely ..." https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1663305031477604352 1663305031477604352

https://twitter.com/Not_the_Bee/status/1663281557275136006

He Who Must Be Named: https://twitter.com/Banned_Bill/status/1661844192711127042 1661844192711127042

Also, what AF said:

TIL RFK Jr. thinks his uncle was a lifetime member of a "terror group". I'm not sure what I'm meant to make of that. Is it supposed to be a mark in his favor? :confused: The man demonized a gun-rights group (albeit a milquetoast, quisling one) as "terror", and promoted the idea of repealing the 2nd Amendment.

THREAD: Russia issues arrest warrant for Lindsey Graham

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again. https://twitter.com/UncleZoGunTales/status/1661564409670512643

Okay, that was awesome. :tears:

If RFK Jr. thinks the NRA is a "terror group", I can't even begin to imagine what he would think of orgs like Gun Owners of America - or Firearms Policy Coalition, whose stock response to gun grabbers is literally "Fuck you. No.".

https://twitter.com/lecternleader/status/1653484315949375488

RFK Jr. - "Defender" of the Bill of Rights (except the most important one, upon which the defense of the others ultimately depends): https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/978719883528585217 John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment (archive link: https://archive.is/5aj9Z)] RFK Jr.: "the NRA is a terror group". (Actually, they're worse than that - they're Judas goats. Unfortunately, though, that's not why RFK Jr. hates them.)

"It wasn't competition ..." https://twitter.com/RickMcCargar/status/1663037159194984449

As has been amply demonstrated, the laws were never really meant to be enforced. They are effectively just window dressing - there for show, but not much else. They exist to be pointed at as reassurance (completely empty reassurance, as it turns out) that elections are fair, neutral, and even-handed, If that reassurance wasn't completely empty, then those responsible for all the rules-violating problems and irregularities that have been exposed would be held to account - and that would happen entirely regardless of whether there might be a number of "problematic" votes sufficient to change the outcome of an election. That those responsible for the violations and irregularities are not being held to account (and are apparently not going to be) is effectively a "green light" signalling that the laws and rules that supposedly govern the conduct of elections don't actually matter, and that they can be violated without consequence (just because the supposed winner would supposedly have won anyway). Thus, there's not a chance in hell any judge is going to have the balls to actually declare any election to be null and void (certainly not above a certain level of office, anyway) - no matter what shenanigans might be evidenced. Some excuse or other can always be found for ignoring or eliding any "irregularities", the easiest such excuse being "it cannot be said with any certainty that the outcome would have been different". As a practical matter, it is effectively impossible to prove the outcome would in fact have been different, even if it was true - and especially so if any cheating really did occur (the whole point and effect of cheating, after all, is to obfuscate the true results).

I was going to say more about this in that post, but it seems to have slipped through the cracks, so I'll just tack it on here: Just because they like to invoke the phrase "free trade" in their rhetoric, or stick it into their euphemistically-titled edicts (such as the "North American Free Trade Act"), don't let them gaslight you into thinking that they in any way support or endorse (or have any interest at all in) actual, genuine free trade, or that their policies really have anything to do with it. Their cynical and manipulative use of the term "free trade" is every bit as empty and bogus as their use of terms such as "affordable care" and "inflation reduction" (vis-à-vis the "Affordable Care Act" and the "Inflation Reduction Act", for example) - and for exactly the same reasons. Whenever they say "free trade", what they actually mean is "managed trade". Actual, genuine free trade absolutely does not require the implementation of multi-thousand-page documents (unless those thousands of pages are nothing more than a list of myriad rules and regulations that are to be abolished and replaced with nothing at all). IOW: Buchanan was right to oppose NAFTA - but he did so for the wrong reason:

LOL - they did the meme: American democracy was "literally shaking". :tears: And when their supporters donate more in order to offset the offset - what then? Fine them again? And then again? And ... ? (Leave it to the government to indulge in self-masturbatory circle-jerks and call it "justice".)

John Kerry says US farmers must radically transform food production to meet 'net zero' emissions goals by 2030 "We can't get to net zero, we don't get this job done, unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution." https://thepostmillennial.com/john-kerry-says-us-farmers-must-radically-transform-food-production-to-meet-net-zero-emissions-goals-by-2030 Libby Emmons (28 May 2023) Biden's Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, former Senator John Kerry, made a stunning revelation earlier this month when he spoke about the need to transform the way food is produced in order to lower emissions. The new crusade for climate activists is to reduce emissions that are a result of food production. "A lot of people have no clue that agriculture contributes about 33 percent of all the emissions of the world," Kerry said, "depending a little bit on how you count it, but it's anywhere from 26 to 33. And we can't get to net zero, we don't get this job done, unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution. So all of us understand here. The depths of this mission." First they came for fossil fuels and the energy sector, now they are coming for our sustenance. "The largest source of anthropogenic methane emissions is agriculture, responsible for around one quarter of emissions, closely followed by the energy sector, which includes emissions from coal, oil, natural gas and biofuels," the IEA states.

https://twitter.com/LPMisesCaucus/status/1662876704082219008

You proclaimed him to a defender of the Bill of Rights. I merely pointed out that if he's actually serious about defending those rights, then he should at least have an answer to the question you asked. (You seemed to expect me to have an answer for it, and I'm just some random schmuck on the Internet, not a major POTUS candidate.) If that makes me an agent of "division" ... well, okay, whatever. I don't even know what that's supposed to mean - but it doesn't negate or nullify anything I've said.

Go ask RFK, Jr. If his "defense" of the Bill or Rights is really serious, then he should be able to tell you (or at the very least, he should be proclaiming that we ought to be allowed to have the teeth necessary "to defend against such tyranny"). And if he can't (or he isn't), then he's not really serious, is he?

Well, I did say that I'm not too worried - not that I'm not worried at all. ;) Far be it from me to gainsay the people of Connecticut if they see fit to consign themselves fully to the mercy of politicians and bureaucrats (and their enforcers). There would still be that problem of logistics, though. No doubt there would be a good deal of "law abiding" compliance - but that doesn't necessarily mean there would be "enough" compliance. And even if there were, prophylactic reaction outside CT is sure to be galvanized by any draconian enforcement inside CT - in which case: so much the worse for CT, and so much the better elsewhere. If anything, it would just be that much more impetus for self-segregation and separation.

That's nice. I'm happy for you. And for the record, I'm not too worried that RFK Jr. or anyone else is going to be coming for all our guns (if only as a matter of practical logistics). But if it's all the same to you, I'm not going to give a whole lot of credit to any defense (or defender) of the Bill of Rights in which (or for whom) a full-throated advocacy of the principle behind the 2nd Amendment does not figure prominently front-and-center. The right to keep and bear arms as the ultimate recourse against tyranny is the wellspring of the effective defense of all other rights, and any "defense" of those other rights that cannot be bothered to make clear and emphatic reference to the critical importance of the right to keep and bear arms is simply not to be taken seriously. Such "defenses" are merely pleasant-sounding but empty words coming from a mouth with no teeth.

It's a comparative thing. That's why I qualified my characterization of Kennedy as "the most anti-establishment of all the notable candidates". Granted, that's a pretty low bar, relative to the other notables - but your points 1 & 2 are pretty big things that you, I, Rockwell & DiLorenzo can all agree upon, and I think that goes a long way towards explaining Rockwell's regard for Kennedy as a "legitimate and promising 'alternative' candidate", despite any disagreements over the issue of high protective tariffs (And if you were to frame the first part of point 3 in terms of "Globalized Free Managed Trade", then there would certainly be a basis for broad agreement on that point, as well.) I know exactly what you mean. While I like Kennedy much more than the other notables (with the exception of Ramaswamy, whom I also like), I neither endorse nor "support" him for pretty much the same reason. But I am glad he's running and giving voice to things no one else is saying, despite my disagreements with him on other things.