• Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 02:07 PM
    I'm not asking you to assume that. I'm asking you to dig into the actual details and provide support for the dogmatic claims your making. Have you looked at their data? A minute ago you agreed that they only need to be accurate to within a margin that's less than the difference between the numbers of eligible voters and registered voters. That's a huge margin. We're not talking about some subjective touchy feely evaluation of reliable versus unreliable. We're talking about actual numbers. So again, if you look at that data and see a way to squeeze an extra 50,000+ people into Alaska's estimate of the number of people over 18 in the state, then please show it. If you think we can agree that they're liable to be off by anything close to that amount, then you're wrong, we can't agree on that. If you don't want to bother looking at the proof that's been provided to you, then the claim that they have more registered voters than eligible voters stands proven, and you should stop saying it hasn't been just because you assume the numbers could be off by a little bit.
    172 replies | 5672 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 01:33 PM
    It's proven. I showed you the proof. You just chose not to look at it. You being unaware of something (in this case by choice) is not the same as its nonexistence. If you see any way to avoid the conclusion that Alaska has more registered voters than eligible voters, then please show that using the data from Alaska's own website.
    172 replies | 5672 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 01:24 PM
    No you don't. You only have to assume that it's accurate to within a margin of error that's less than the difference between it and the number of registered voters. We haven't discussed each and every state and county. But Alaska has been used as an example, and it's been shown irrefutably that this is the case for at least that state.
    172 replies | 5672 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 12:20 PM
    I'd say those are good guesses. I won't check them out because I grant that you're probably right. I don't see why it matters though. If she voted no on those bills for leftist reasons, then it's too bad some of the Republican senators on those lists didn't also vote no on those same bills for those same leftist reasons.
    5 replies | 73 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 11:50 AM
    One of the advantages of this theory is that it allows its adherents to buy some time to save face by switching the date to 4/3 after 3/4 passes and saying that that's what they meant all along.
    20 replies | 467 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 11:41 AM
    Lawrence Vance gets it. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/03/laurence-m-vance/aoc-the-perfect-republican-senate-candidate/
    5 replies | 73 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 11:26 AM
    It seems like all you're doing is drawing some kind of line of guilt by association from Cecil Rhodes to every Rhodes scholar. That doesn't make sense. Getting a Rhodes scholarship doesn't entail an invitation to secret meetings. It may well be true that there's a lot of overlap there, because Rhodes scholarships get awarded to the kinds of people who are the most likely to be politically powerful. And I have no doubt that people who do get awarded them are likely to be made into anglophiles by their experience. But that's a far cry from some kind of conspiracy where something happens to them at Oxford, aside from a pretty normal academic experience, that turns them into Manchurian candidates. And the OP wasn't just about Rhodes scholars, but anyone who went to Oxford at all.
    16 replies | 203 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 10:51 AM
    No. It's you who is misrepresenting the point, at least the point my initial question was addressing. I am not talking about Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale being nursings for the Anglo-American Financial Elite. I am talking specifically about Oxford, and specifically about the claim that having cabinet members studying there indicates that the US is effectively a British colony.
    16 replies | 203 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 10:11 AM
    That works against you. Since the number of registered voters in some places exceeds the number of adults living there, then it must exceed the number of eligible voters by even more than that.
    172 replies | 5672 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 09:58 AM
    And these books show that everybody who takes a class at Oxford works for the deep state under the employment of the United Kingdom, or something like that? I'm pretty sure that Tragedy and Hope does not support that claim, or anything similar to it.
    16 replies | 203 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 09:32 AM
    Watching Youtube videos doesn't count as studying history. And I'm not going to waste time watching videos anyway. If you have anything serious, then it's in writing. Do you? But to get to the gist, are you suggesting that if I went to take some classes at Oxford, somehow that would make me part of the deep state?
    16 replies | 203 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Today, 09:00 AM
    How does having cabinet members who studied at Oxford mean that the US is under the rule of the UK?
    16 replies | 203 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    19 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:03 PM
    I've heard this, or numbers in this range, from a couple places. Is this actually true, that the minimum wage at some point in the past was that ridiculously high? If it is, then what's the catch? Because that is such a ludicrous idea, that if it's true, there has to be a catch. Edit: Looks like the highest MW, indexed for inflation, was in the late 60's, when it was about $11.50/hr in today's dollars. So the liberals giving numbers in the 20's are either flat out lying or playing some kind of games with the data. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/business/us-minimum-wage-by-year/index.html
    19 replies | 313 view(s)
  • tfurrh's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:37 PM
    Almost primary season......he had to go big after snowpocalypse.
    18 replies | 374 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:13 AM
    Who did what? Apparently yes, whatever it is is over my head.
    33 replies | 892 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:20 AM
    And more than just having teeth, it will also get down to actually applying this. It requires either the AG or the legislature to go through the process of actually deeming orders and laws unconstitutional. They may want to pass a bill like this to get credit for standing up for the Constitution, but then never actually put it to use. Even if the only effect will be that state LE won't enforce those particular orders and laws, if nothing is being done right now to stop them from doing that, then passing another bill that does nothing more than essentially declare that the state reserves the right to do it won't make them start doing it.
    9 replies | 303 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:44 AM
    It looks like in practice, all this means is that state law enforcement won't enforce the executive orders that get deemed unconstitutional. But what's the status quo? Can't the governor just opt not to enforce them already? Federal agents will still be able to enforce them in the state either way.
    9 replies | 303 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-01-2021, 03:35 PM
    What is "universal signature matching"? Most of the items on that list look like things that I would expect to be matters of state law. But then that one, because it uses the word "universal" looks like something he's trying to make federal. Is that not what "universal" means there? I guess the same thing could be said about the way he includes "100%" in point #6.
    172 replies | 5672 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-01-2021, 08:34 AM
    Here's a transcript of Trump's speech at CPAC. This gives you an idea of what the word "conservative" means when he and his supporters call themselves conservatives. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-cpac-speech-2021-b1809208.html The word "conservative" occurs 7 times in Trump's speech. The first two are just naming CPAC and the ACU. The last two at the end of the speech are just generic calls to elect conservatives and lead the conservative movement. In between those, he indicates that conservatives are those who support Operation Warp Speed, want to break up big tech monopolies, want to repeal section 230, and support government regulation of speech online. This is what it means to be a conservative now. The erosion of all meaning from the word is now complete.
    26 replies | 795 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-01-2021, 06:32 AM
    Yes. In that sense, Jesus is the king of all creation. All authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to him. And one day every knew will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. But his kingdom is not of this world. This is not something he will bring about by way of the kinds of governments that now exist on this earth. The term "one worlder" has connotations of support for global government initiatives that are rooted in the kinds of human governments that now rule us. My view is a repudiation of those. Nor do I support any kind of attempt to take over the world in the name of Jesus to rule it by the sword, just shifting control from the existing regimes to new "Christian" ones. I'm not sure where you get this "right around the corner" line. I just said that I make no claims about how soon Christ will return. My role in this world is the same as what the role of followers of Jesus in the generation of the apostles was. The fact that Christ's return was at that time at least 2,000 years off into the future (though they didn't know that) didn't make it unwise for them when they took up their crosses and followed him.
    26 replies | 534 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    03-01-2021, 06:12 AM
    I agree. Now that we've gotten rid of the lockdowner at the top of the totem pole, let's turn our attention to the culprits who are still around at the next level down from him. Being a lockdowner should be an insurmountable political liability.
    85 replies | 1111 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-28-2021, 09:15 PM
    No, jmdrake is correct. I have consistently said that blame belongs to both Trump and the governors who followed his plan. And I'm sure you know that. But the Trumpers seem to want to let Trump himself off the hook. And I refuse to sit back and let them rewrite history that way.
    85 replies | 1111 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-28-2021, 05:29 PM
    I don't accept the "one worlder" label. And I make no claims about how soon Christ will return. But the rest of what you said is a pretty good summary of my worldview. And I would add that it is also a pretty good summary of the worldview of the New Testament. Now on this part, you have it backwards. I am the one in this thread who is pointing out just how bad the DC regime is in its very essence, to the point that the US Constitution itself enables that regime's tyranny by design. It's the rest of you who I think have the overly rosy view of the Constitution that it's a more libertarian document than it really is.
    26 replies | 534 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-28-2021, 05:17 PM
    Are you saying that those things make him more credible? Edit: Never mind. I hadn't caught up to the part of the thread where it was revealed that you switched Deagle for Deagel.
    33 replies | 892 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-28-2021, 03:37 PM
    Another possibility that you guys should consider is that somebody actually can consider the issue and sincerely reach a different conclusion than you do.
    26 replies | 534 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-28-2021, 03:36 PM
    Sophistry or not, it has never been the case in this nation's history that the government has ever held that the 4th Amendment absolutely prohibited searches without warrants. I agree with you that the clause in question is intended to protect the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. But the conclusion you try to draw from that doesn't follow logically from it, and is neither what the text actually says, nor what it was originally intended to say.
    26 replies | 534 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-28-2021, 01:32 PM
    Of course you can. I just did, and there's no reason not to. Consider a scenario with the following three givens: 1. A state is known to have an 18-and-over population of 1,000,000 +/- 1,000. 2. the number of eligible voters in that state must be fewer than the number of people in it who are 18 and over. 3. That same state has 1,206,312 registered voters. The first given refers to an estimate with a certain margin of error. The third given refers to an actual count of registered voters with no margin of error. You can compare those numbers and see that that state has more registered voters than eligible voters. The fact that one of the numbers is an estimate doesn't invalidate that.
    172 replies | 5672 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-27-2021, 04:44 PM
    You're moving the goalposts. Nobody is claiming that votes exceeded registered voters. The claim is that registered voters exceeds eligible voters in some states. You earlier denied that. You asserted in a black-and-white manner that that claim was flat out false. Now you seem to just be dancing around it. But it's really indisputable. In the case of Alaska, given the evidence you've already been shown, there is no conceivable way that there are as many eligible voters in the state as there are registered voters. This is according to the state's own data for both numbers. It has been known and reported in the mainstream media for years, and I have not seen any representative of the state's government, or anyone else besides you, try to deny that it is the case.
    172 replies | 5672 view(s)
  • Invisible Man's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 02:35 PM
    That's pretty much what he says in this quote: "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech Notably, he called restrictions placed on the ability of corporations to spend money on lobbying violations of the freedom of speech. I think that illustrates how he understands the rights of individuals to apply to corporations, as tools being used by individuals.
    38 replies | 927 view(s)
More Activity
About Invisible Man

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
11
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)
Political Campaign Skills
Computer and Technical:
Scientists and Engineer

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
924
Posts Per Day
2.05
General Information
Last Activity
Today 03:14 PM
Join Date
12-09-2019
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. tfurrh tfurrh is offline

    Member

    tfurrh
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

02-28-2021


02-20-2021


02-10-2021


01-11-2021


12-27-2020


No results to display...
Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast

03-03-2021


03-02-2021


03-01-2021



Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast