playboymommy
Member

Clearly you do not understand the first thing about me. Go in peace.

Normally, no, they wouldn't. Same with Trump being able to go to his Supreme Court case, or to his son's graduation. Which is what makes this all so obvious.

HELL YEA!

All ballots should included NONE OF THE ABOVE! We would all be immediately better off with no government than this crap.

+1 for: Kung Fu Rockford Files Anyone else remember this one?

I remember loving the Night Stalker as a kid. I don't remember Movin On... I do remember Valerie Bertinelli in One Day at a Time!

Any judge and DA could do that to anybody regardless of whether or not they are guilty, regardless of whether they disobeyed any court orders. And if Trump goes to jail because he went to his son's graduation, or to his Supreme Court oral argument hearings, it will be his own "fault" too, right?

Mike Johnson is as bad as all the rest.

I maintain my insistence on https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com/2021/07/amendment-xxix.html

I gave up there.

One of the families was saying that when they heard Hillary Clinton talking about AJ and Sandy Hook during the election, they thought that he was still on his podcast talking about it and making money years later.. when in fact he tried for several weeks to NOT talk about it, while documentaries with millions of views were all over the internet.. his audience was DEMANDING he talk about it, all he did was a couple interviews, decided to drop it right away and never talked about it again. The families never watched the show, had no idea what they were even suing him over. AJ wasn't allowed to defend himself in court. It was all a big setup to knee cap him, that is what they admitted it was from day one.

If they already got it, then what's the problem? Sounds like AJ already handed it over to his attorney, did his attorney screw something up? He sent them a mountain of data and they expected AJ to be on top of everything that was sent as well as be 100% familiar with all of the data he has? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

That is certainly so, but why not use Theire rotten system to make them have to work as tediously as possible in that sphere? It may not work out that way, but then it costs one very little to give it a swing.

2 hours later... 1779364803787571651 https://twitter.com/SpinninBackfist/status/1779364803787571651

Judge: "Turn over all your documents" Alex Jones: "Ok, here you go" Judge: "There's more documents you need to turn over" Alex Jones: "That's everything Judge, I don't have anything more to turn over" Judge: "No, there is more to turn over, you just haven't turned it over yet"

While many Republicans love them some FISA... other Republicans are trying to reform FISA... MTG is fighting alongside Massie to kill FISA.

Forced the house to come in to actually vote on bills by declaring role call when there's like a dozen people in the room so the people can better hold their politicians accountable by knowing how they voted? Before it was only Massie who would do such a thing.. so they just met when he wasn't there, he couldn't do it by himself. Now they have a team. Help oust speakers who break their promises on not doing omnibus bills is another.

She once appears on TimcastIRL with Thomas Massie.. they are very close.

^^ That's the old map.. They updated it for the movie. Tim Pool discussed it tonight on his show, and he is right. I knew I had a bad feeling about the movie even though it claims to be "non-partisan". The President is obviously being depicted as a Trump or a "Trumper".. The say that he treats the press the same as the enemy.. He disbanded the FBI and is in his third term.. The Director said he was "fascist" and apparently the Director is from the UK, lol.. In the updated map, instead of the Western Forces, the PNW is depicted as "The New People's Army" and they are called "Maoists" in the film, so apparently China took over that area.. California and Texas end up uniting as the "Western Forces" who end up taking out the fascist leader of DC and the loyalist states.

The movie takes place probably about 20 years in the future. The older woman became famous getting some photos at "The Great Antifa Massacre" when she was in her mid-20s. They try not to make it a "partisan" film, hence the map below, Texas and California uniting in one faction. It does try to be a sort of warning against actually having a Civil War, it doesn't glorify anything. The President tries to make some patriotic speeches, carrying out the "Founding Father's vision", etc, etc.. nobody seems impressed.

No. *SPOILER ALERT* They assassinate the President in the end, and nobody is upset about it. Just got back from seeing it. Mostly saw it for research purposes, not entertainment value. Not bad I guess..

bump

That would have been more accurate.

This is a fascinating but infuriating discussion with Tucker. It's definitely a must-see for all Christians, especially for us Evangelicals.

I'm not at all getting your point. Nowhere do I state nor do I imply anything even remotely as you put it here. Where's this coming from? I remain perplexed. I would not put them in charge of commerce, but the issue at hand is not of trade, but of responses in the face of external threats. I've not said anywhere that such measures are good for trade, but under a very narrowly defined set of circumstances, trade must yield to defense. Trade, for example, makes little difference when the enemy in question is landing troops in all up and down the eastern and western seaboards. I've made that distinction very clearly.

The fact that liberty has to be pitched should tell you something very significant about the state of the mean American. Hint: it's not very good.

A pipe dream, indeed... but you neglect to say why. WE are the reason. Our rank corruption as individuals who want all the joys and exhilarations of liberty but who have no interest in paying the costs and bearing the fatigues of getting and maintaining the state, make it so. We, the glorious people, are by and large full of shit. So please, let us at least be honest in a sufficiently complete manner with each other here on this site, the way friends should be with one another, and speak circumspectly on such matters. I agree with your assertion, but I add the reason why it is so, which reveals that we could change it. We just don't want to... enough. We want the knight in shining armor - Trump is a good contemporary example - to fix it all so we can go back to masturbating and filling our noses with snow and sticking our tongues up our girlfriends' asses as we shop for swag on our cell phones. Whoopdee flippin' doo... For the millionth time: WE are the root of all human problems. It ain't the climate; it ain't mass-coronal-ejections; it's not an asteroid about to slam into the earth, or little green men from Andromeda, or mountain lions. It's us. Just us, and nothing or nobody else. Until that changes, there's not that much point in going on about liberty, is there?

THis, of course, raises the same old question of at what point do people begin taking non-equivocating physical action against these agents of perdition. Disobedience is usually met by men with guns. Will mass disobedience produce results where dribs and drabs fail? We really have not tried it yet, so who can say? But reasonably assuming that the hornets' nest would be stirred and many people would be gravely violated by the armed petty-tyrants, pursuant to their masters' orders, what then? It then becomes a very clear choice: fight or capitulate. Fight must perforce mean the holding to account those who become the sources of tyrannical action, and if that means apprehending the boards of large network media outlets, for example, then that is what would have to be done. Apprehend CEOs and Chairmans of the Board and issue warrants for the arrests of all other board members, many of whom would likely attempt to flee the country or take sanctuary with police, which raises yet another interesting set of possibilities. But at some point, we the big-mouthed "free men of America" need to shit or get off the pot, and shitting means BECOMING the self-governing people who act within the metes of the principles of liberty, lest we become what we claim to loathe. And THAT raises some interesting questions as well, not the least of which would be the question of volumes and appeals and so forth. Under such conditions, SCOTUS would be absolutely unworthy of the least shred of trust because those justices would without question view the "people" as renegades. So how would it all be handled? Or would we declare war for real and simply execute prisoners on the spot? It could prove the only practical way to negotiate such a dolorous circumstance. Regardless of all these discomfiting uncertainties, the one certainty in my opinion is that we are going to have to wrest the powers of governance from the hands of these scurrilous criminals if we are to take our liberties in a serious and adult way. Otherwise, we're just bullshitting ourselves and each other in the good old echo chamber, and then why bother talking about it at all?

The perfect is the enemy of the good. I wrote normatively and it is a clearly valid perspective. That the positive reality reeks of numbskulls and douchepigs with malevolent or ineptly conceived agendas, screwing billions of people in their backholes through bad decisions of the sort under discussion here, it does not follow that the notion itself is mistaken. The magic is competence and good faith, which boils down to trustworthiness. That nearly nary a single living soul involving himself in such matters is worthy of the least shred of our trust, it still does not follow that the idea in itself is unworthy. It only means that either we have the wrong people in such positions of special trust, the issue itself is very difficult to navigate correctly or, most likely, both. And let us not evade the bigger issue and root of the problem under discussion: people, by and large, are fucking douches, ill-content to live and let live. Quite the contrary, they seek petty drama, the consequences of which tends to be misery heaped upon misery. At the end of the day, there is little to recommend us as a species. Our cleverness, coupled with our eminent corruptibility and our apparent lust for corruption, has far outflanked our wishes to live good lives amid our fellow human beings. Otherwise, we would be living far better lives than we currently enjoy.

Protectionist measures do indeed bring harm to economies, most particularly when all else is normal and cordial between trade partners. But when justified, such properly considered measures lead to lesser evils. Comparatively trivial issues of optimal economic health are secondary to the immediate survival of a people in the face of threats from an external enemy. The issue you address is not quite as simple as you seem to convey. These sorts of political considerations most often carry subtle difficulties and require wise men to undertake such measures in a manner loosely analogous to the amputation of a gangrenous limb for the sake of saving the life to which it is attached. AF's example of cutting all economic ties with China, our mortal enemy, is valid.

I will fight Mitch McConnell any time, any place. I am so glad he is taking up challengers!

Are they starting WWIII?

Actually that's a pretty funny website to post in response. I also think that TheCount makes a good point. The left doesn't really care what is true and what is not true, they only care about power. We need to take that to heart.

ssa.gov??

I'm not religious but I think for the most part it instills good values and builds strong communities, that's been my experience. Some people get screwed up from pretty much every religion. Born-again protestants seemed more cultish to me growing up, but they probably overall had a positive impact compared to being non-religious. My biggest issue with people who are not religious is that so many end up worshiping the government, vote leftist, push cultural marxism and are anti-families. The vast majority of people here are against Utah being a sanctuary state, but the problem is Mormons are taught to be so kind and accepting that it can lead to leftist tendencies - the reason being that you aren't really supposed to discuss politics at church, so people confuse the teachings of being kind with government mandating they can take your money and give it to other people rather than being personally charitable. On the other hand, Mormons believe that the Constitution is a sacred document that was heavily influenced by God, so for the most part people seem to get it.

Well put together. I've posted it elsewhere. Mors tyrannis.

I dunno, most of the state outside of SLC is pretty good.. I would even say pretty libertarian. It's mostly the city that has the huge problems. Marilyn Manson was from the bible belt, so maybe more strict religions do produce a more extreme rebelliousness in some cases.. but the Mormons are a lot different now than they used to be and it's becoming a problem. They are so nice and accepting of outsiders, but they used to have very high standards for themselves. Now they are accepting to a fault, even among members. They say it's ok to be LGBTQ and be Mormon, you just can't act on it, for example.. that didn't used to be a thing. They also allow tattoos and piercings now (besides female single ear piercings), I guess they don't recommend it, but they don't do a lot to discourage it, they say if you want tattoos or piercings you should consider the costs, but if you really want to do it then pray about it. They used to be the fastest growing religion in the world by % in the 90s, I think since then they have started to shrink in numbers. That's part of why they have lowered standards.. There is also legitimate debate over whether Utah is a sanctuary state for illegals, which is becoming a huge problem. Illegals know Utah is a friendly state for them to come to.

No, it was in Riverton. I moved to Utah over a year ago, but not the woke part, I'm in a very conservative area. If you read my post carefully, I'm also a state delegate. I still consider myself a Californian tho... not changing my location. I dunno if I'll ever move back, we'll see.. but the conservatives here are happy to have me cuz SLC is a nightmare and the state could easily go purple in the next 5-10 years.

That said, this is an important message for Utah. Salt Lake City is woke as shit.. it's worse than California, except maybe San Francisco or something.. I've seen WAY more transgender people and woke rainbow flags visiting family there than I've seen my whole life living in progressive areas in California.. and most of the Republicans in those areas have no backbone. They just want to be polite and accepting. You go out to the rural areas and it's a completely different story..