presence
Member

LOL. Did not see that I wonder if anyone wrote a poem about "there is no good black people" if they'd get a $800,000 McArthur Fellowship

The last line was cut short. I've edited the post to include the whole thing. CCTelander TheTexan

That WAS moving, wasn’t it?

I was personally moved by this young man's words of genius. I really related to the part where anyone can turn on a TV and see several kinds of bird

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

Black people aren't the enemy but the culture of violence that they live in and promote absolutely is. Blacks are the only subculture in America where a person can earn positive social credit by committing random acts of violence. Even the most vile, despicable white subcultures in America will look down on random acts of violence, e.g. sucker punching a grandma in the back of the head. Similar to drug addiction problems in communities (white and black), black communities have a violence problem. As a country, we ignore it and enable this behavior, when it's clearly not something that should be tolerated. People even refuse to even look at the issue because they don't want to be called out as racist, but yes - this issue is very specific to a specific race: blacks.

The stench of a dead and decaying society is pungent and permeates everything and everybody living within it. It fogs the mind and numbs the soul. It's like The Matrix. On a more positive note, I set up a small backyard forge and used a hunk of rail for my first anvil. Cheap and functional.

https://x.com/jmasseypoet/status/1842680943381025126 1842680943381025126

I understand it perfectly. You sound like my wife: because I disagree, I'm a fucking idiot that can't read plain English. People, including you, are simply wrong on this: a mass shooting is a mass shooting. None should be tolerated and all need accounting for. Because it makes for very uncomfortable statistics, is not my concern.

Hey hey, some good news. https://x.com/NatCon2022/status/1842341044974923790 1842341044974923790

https://x.com/i/status/1843165911542644991 1843165911542644991

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.

Best of luck, hope this one fizzles out.

Quite right. What's interesting about it, is that it seems to me pretty self evident that free trade creates these dependencies (or "interests"). A dependency, by definition, has risks associated with it. Which should be pretty obvious and yet some here seem extremely resistant to even acknowledging it. It's one thing to acknowledge it and say there are reasonable counter-arguments (for which there are), but its yet another thing entirely to go along pretending like these dependencies and risks don't even exist, which is what most of the free-traders here seem to do. Same thing about the direction we're headed towards a one world government. I believe it was Collins who called it a "myth". Full global economic integration is so obviously a huge step closer to global political unification, that the denial of how it brings us closer to globalism would be laughable if not so sad. I know the people on this board are capable of critical thinking, or they wouldn't be here, but it's just shocking to me how little of their critical thinking applies to the subject of free trade - and more broadly, the retention of culture and identity in general.

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.

The above instant knee-jerk reaction is the kind of emotional response that I am referring to in post #42. It is a triggered, emotional, and predictable response that was manufactured by the globalists to demonize isolationism, sovereignty, and secession. There is absolutely nothing wrong about a society, or an individual, wanting to be left alone.

Basically what he's saying above is that people consider countries that just want to be left alone, a dangerous threat, for the sake of wanting to be left alone. I tend to agree that is how the world thinks, but it's not an opinion that someone should be proud of sharing. There is nothing wrong, or aggressive, about just wanting to be left alone, whether you are a nation, or an individual. Isolation is not a bad thing, or a good thing, by itself. It is a country's choice and it should be respected, and not feared or mistrusted. The above author's symptom is indicative of a much greater global pressure to integrate, and that is most certainly a bad thing. This global pressure is always headed one way and its towards a globalist one world government.

“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.

OK, Phil has told me he is going to make another run this coming weekend. PM me for a Venmo name, address to mail a check to or any other info.

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?

Can't debate rationally with those people. We conquer them, or we separate from them, but debating and coming to an agreed outcome seems simply out of the realm of possibility.

The benefits of free trade - to the extent they exist - are minimal at best. The consequences of free trade? Potentially a one world government and the elimination of sovereignty in all of its forms. Its not worth it.

If a business spends all their money on hookers and coke, it is indeed an equitable transaction with both sides benefiting. But that business is still gonna go out of business no matter how equitable it was. You just failed business 102. I welcome any attempts to disprove the scenario I linked. The scenario I have provided proves the above statement wrong. (that it is "undeniably" good)

The point was, a responsible adult will limit how many irresponsible trades they make. As an individual, irresponsible trades can look like paying exorbitant fees to get groceries delivered to you when the grocery store is 3 blocks away. I do this personally because I can afford it but it's expensive and addictive and even though I can afford it, it is still quite irresponsible as I'm not doing anything "productive" with the time I'm saving. I'm just being exceptionally lazy. These irresponsible trades destroy personal wealth. Or more accurately, that wealth gets transferred. When you buy hookers and coke, yes both sides benefit in terms of value, but only one side benefits in terms of wealth. The same thing happens at a national level. Nations can make irresponsible trades. If a nation sells its means of production, and then spends that money on consumption products - which is what this nation did - then that is an irresponsible trade. There is almost no such thing as "specialization" when it comes to countries the size of the US. There are very few products that other countries can produce better due to advantages other than simply labor cost. (Exceptions including, tropical produce, a few rare minerals, etc) I have proven that these labor-cost based trades can be detrimental to a country's economy. (See, the referenced link from earlier) I welcome any attempts to disprove it.

https://x.com/TooWhiteToTweet/status/1843017152359448799 1843017152359448799

https://x.com/Made_YourDay_/status/1842808874337808640 1842808874337808640

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

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.