Official Impeachment Hearing Thread

[r3volution 3.0]

And it was full of immigrants.
Immigrants like Bernie's family.

The immigrants didn't own the banks which sent the money to Petrograd to finance the bolshevik party.

The immigrants didn't send agents into Russia, under cover of Red Cross etc, to assist them.

The immigrants didn't use their connections at the State Dept. to have the British release Trotsky when he got caught in Canada.

The Germans had an excuse for releasing Lenin; they were at war with Russia - what's the excuse of the E. Coast Establishment WASPs?

...insufficient liberty culture, I suppose.

Would you like some quotes from leading WASP New Yorkers, who ran the white house at that time, hailing bolshevism?

There are lots of them.

[Swordsmyth]

The immigrants didn't own the banks which sent the money to Petrograd to finance the bolshevik party.

The immigrants didn't send agents into Russia, under cover of Red Cross etc, to assist them.

The immigrants didn't use their connections at the State Dept. to have the British release Trotsky when he got caught in Canada.

The Germans had an excuse for releasing Lenin; they were at war with Russia - what's the excuse of the E. Coast Establishment WASPs?

...insufficient liberty culture, I suppose.

Would you like some quotes from leading WASP New Yorkers, who ran the white house at that time, hailing bolshevism?

There are lots of them.

Yankees have had insufficient liberty culture for a long time, and it had a lot to do with waves of immigration in the 1800's.
But what is most important is that those who oppose liberty have been bringing in immigrants to destroy liberty in America, America didn't go bolshevik in the early 20th Century because although there may have been anti-liberty people here the vast majority of Americans were more liberty oriented than most of the world and certainly more than the places that went bolshevik, today we are perilously close to going bolshevik and immigrants have been at the forefront of that effort and compose a disproportionate amount of its numbers.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yankees have had insufficient liberty culture for a long time, and it had a lot to do with waves of immigration in the 1800's.
But what is most important is that those who oppose liberty have been bringing in immigrants to destroy liberty in America, America didn't go bolshevik in the early 20th Century because although there may have been anti-liberty people here the vast majority of Americans were more liberty oriented than most of the world and certainly more than the places that went bolshevik, today we are perilously close to going bolshevik and immigrants have been at the forefront of that effort and compose a disproportionate amount of its numbers.

It has nothing to do with the non-English immigrants whom you irrationally hate.

It has to do with the proto-bolshevik, low-church, dregs of England, roundhead, traitors, who initially populated this country.

...the northern part anyway.

And it was full of immigrants.
Immigrants like Bernie's family.

Do you know who the Webbs (husband and wife) were?

These disgusting pigs (WASPs both) wrote a panegyric book for the bolsheviks in the 30s.

As Stalin was in the process of butchering millions and destroying what remained of Russian civilization, in 1935, they wrote a laudatory book called "Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?" The first edition was prefaced by a piece by John Maynard Keynes, our very own, clean English (i.e. WASP) communist $#@!sack.

Around this same time, incidentally, Ludwig von Mises (decidedly not a WASP: white, but not Anglo-Saxon [Austrian, better], and certainly not Protestant) was being hounded out of the remnants of the Habsburg Empire (which had to be destroyed of course, because democracy..) by leftist garbage differentiated from its bolshevik cousin only by its treatment of Jews.

[Swordsmyth]

It has nothing to do with the non-English immigrants whom you irrationally hate.

It has to do with the proto-bolshevik, low-church, dregs of England, roundhead, traitors, who initially populated this country.

...the northern part anyway.

You are the one demonstrating an irrational hatred.
And immigrants who fled to America after their socialist revolutions failed in Europe certainly did have a lot to do with the destruction of liberty culture, much more than the descendants of the Minute Men.

Do you know who the Webbs (husband and wife) were?

These disgusting pigs (WASPs both) wrote a panegyric book for the bolsheviks in the 30s.

As Stalin was in the process of butchering millions and destroying what remained of Russian civilization, in 1935, they wrote a laudatory book called "Soviet Communism: A New Civilization?" The first edition was prefaced by a piece by John Maynard Keynes, our very own, clean English (i.e. WASP) communist $#@!sack.

Around this same time, incidentally, Ludwig von Mises (decidedly not a WASP: white, but not Anglo-Saxon [Austrian, better], and certainly not Protestant) was being hounded out of the remnants of the Habsburg Empire (which had to be destroyed of course, because democracy..) by leftist garbage differentiated from its bolshevik cousin only by its treatment of Jews.

I'm sure you can find a few examples of communist swine whose families arrived on the Mayflower but that doesn't mean that it wasn't far more common among immigrants from anti-liberty cultures.

[r3volution 3.0]

You are the one demonstrating an irrational hatred.
And immigrants who fled to America after their socialist revolutions failed in Europe certainly did have a lot to do with the destruction of liberty culture, much more than the descendants of the Minute Men.

They didn't fail, they were wildly successful.

The American revolution was the second of these events, after the English, and just before the French.

I'm sure you can find a few examples of communist swine whose families arrived on the Mayflower but that doesn't mean that it wasn't far more common among immigrants from anti-liberty cultures.

To use your ridiculous terminology, the Mayflower people and their ilk belonged to an "anti-liberty culture." That's why they were thrown out of England! They were indefatigable busybodies; they are the people who broke into bars a couple hundred years later with axes. Psychotics, the absolute dregs of Europe, whom kings were happy to have make a trip (presumed to be one way at that time) across the sea, just to be rid of them.

The inscription on the statue of liberty is apt; it describes the original colonists: the refuse of the old world, the good world.

The same was done in France, incidentally; they encouraged the French protestants (also nutjobs, republicans) to emigrate.

Understand, this was at a time when labor was valuable and kings were paying people to immigrate to their lands.

...but not these people!

[Swordsmyth]

They didn't fail, they were wildly successful.

The American revolution was the second of these events, after the English, and just before the French.



To use your ridiculous terminology, the Mayflower people and their ilk belonged to an "anti-liberty culture." That's why they were thrown out of England! They were indefatigable busybodies; they are the people who broke into bars a couple hundred years later with axes. Psychotics, the absolute dregs of Europe, whom kings were happy to have make a trip (presumed to be one way at that time) across the sea, just to be rid of them.

The inscription on the statue of liberty is apt; it describes the original colonists: the refuse of the old world, the good world.

The same was done in France, incidentally; they encouraged the French protestants (also nutjobs, republicans) to emigrate.

Understand, this was at a time when labor was valuable and kings were paying people to immigrate to their lands.

...but not these people!

There were indeed a few bad apples but that's no reason to allow them to import reinforcements to overcome the rest of the people who had the best liberty culture in the world.

[r3volution 3.0]

There were indeed a few bad apples but that's no reason to allow them to import reinforcements to overcome the rest of the people who had the best liberty culture in the world.

You're not listening bud. The original colonists, the people whom you idolize, were the refuse of Europe for good reason. The later immigrants were much more reasonable people. That is, they were not deranged religious fanatics. The people in this country, the progressives, whom you hate the most (and I also dislike) are not the descendants of German, Italian, or Irish immigrants. They are the descendants of the aforementioned English nutjobs. They took their busybody religious beliefs, eliminated God, and started talking about solar panels.

[Swordsmyth]

You're not listening bud. The original colonists, the people whom you idolize, were the refuse of Europe for good reason. The later immigrants were much more reasonable people. That is, they were not deranged religious fanatics. The people in this country, the progressives, whom you hate the most (and I also dislike) are not the descendants of German, Italian, or Irish immigrants. They are the descendants of the aforementioned English nutjobs. They took their busybody religious beliefs, eliminated God, and started talking about solar panels.

That's nonsense.

The left is overflowing with immigrants and the descendants of earlier waves of immigrants and most of the heritage Americans were not like the radicals you are focusing on.

America started out with one of the most liberty oriented cultures in the world in spite of any exceptions and every wave of immigrants since the beginning has diluted it until it is now threatened with extinction.

I suggest that we stop derailing this thread now since we have had this conversation many times.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's nonsense.

The left is overflowing with immigrants and the descendants of earlier waves of immigrants and most of the heritage Americans were not like the radicals you are focusing on.

America started out with one of the most liberty oriented cultures in the world in spite of any exceptions and every wave of immigrants since the beginning has diluted it until it is now threatened with extinction.

I suggest that we stop derailing this thread now since we have had this conversation many times.

Oh man, you have such strong opinions but know so little...

I commend to you Rothbard's paper "World War I as Fulfillment: Power & The Intellectuals."

After you read that (only after, I emphasize), look up Mencius Moldbug and read his treatment of progressivism.

[TheCount]

Oh man, you have such strong opinions but know so little...

I commend to you Rothbard's paper "World War I as Fulfillment: Power & The Intellectuals."

After you read that (only after, I emphasize), look up Mencius Moldbug and read his treatment of progressivism.

He doesn't need to read any of that. He already knows (has been told) everything that he needs to know.

It's critical that he closes his mind to new information in order to hold on to his unreasoned beliefs.

One can have enough knowledge to know something is garbage without subjecting one's self to to it in its entirety.

(Side note: I wonder what sort of culture would produce a person like that... )

[Swordsmyth]

He doesn't need to read any of that. He already knows (has been told) everything that he needs to know.

It's critical that he closes his mind to new information in order to hold on to his unreasoned beliefs.






(Side note: I wonder what sort of culture would produce a person like that... )

I have read enough to know that I am right.
It is R3v who ignores the facts in this case.

[TheCount]

I have read enough to know that I am right.

An interesting word, enough.

[Swordsmyth]

In a replay of the three-year “Trump-Russia Collusion” hoax, the alleged “Trump-Ukraine” conspiracy has been revealed as another nothingburger dressed up as a "smoking gun."

The opening day of hearings for the Democrats’ impeachment effort of Donald J. Trump did not go so well for its ringleader, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.; shown), and the key witnesses he had carefully selected and coached. The historic impeachment inquiry that convened publicly on Wednesday, November 13, with the House Intelligence Committee, had been built up for weeks, with Democrats and their anti-Trump media allies promising that it would deliver devastating “smoking gun” evidence proving why President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.
That didn’t happen. Not even remotely.

Despite the fact that the Democrats control the House; despite the fact that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Intel chairman Schiff have had months to prepare their impeachment show trial in secret; despite the fact that they had stacked the deck to suppress evidence and witnesses that would undermine their impeachment narrative; and, despite the fact that they had concocted one-sided rules for the proceedings worthy of a one-party state like North Korea — despite all that, when the curtain went up their production turned out to be incredibly threadbare. Embarrassingly so. In fact, Chairman Schiff, dubbed “Shifty Adam Schiff” by President Trump, did indeed look uncomfortable and shifty as he tried to maintain an image of respectable, nonpartisan fairness over a proceeding that was obviously partisan and one-sided.
In his lengthy opening statement, Chairman Schiff attempted to present a high-tone appearance for the political theater that was about to commence, repeatedly citing the U.S. Constitution, our nation’s Founding Fathers, and respect for the constitutionally-set “balance of power” between the executive and legislative branches of government. He also attempted to paint a very sinister picture of President Trump and his allegedly “terrible” attempt to extort a political favor from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a telephone conversation on July 25, 2019.
“The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether President Trump sought to exploit that ally’s vulnerability and invite Ukraine’s interference in our elections,” Chairman Schiff stated. “Whether President Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or U.S. military assistance, on Ukraine’s willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign? And if President Trump did either, whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency?” “The matter," he darkly warned, “is as simple, and as terrible as that.”
In his closing remarks, Chairman Schiff attempted to strike the pose of a non-partisan, fair-handed statesman, belying the very partisan, underhanded dealings of his impeachment proceedings. “These are the questions we must ask and answer,” he solemnly averred. “Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor or prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities.” He concluded with this gem, a familiar reference to our nation’s founding: “Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a country America was to become, ‘A Republic,’ he answered, ‘if you can keep it.’ The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump is: Can we, keep it?” That is rich, considering that Schiff and his Deep State political and media allies have been doing everything in their power to undermine the Constitution they claim to be upholding, specifically as it pertains to their brazen and treasonous efforts to undo the 2016 elections and evict our constitutionally elected president, Donald Trump from the Oval Office — by any means necessary.
Nunes, Republicans Counterattack
Representative Devin Nunes, the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee was not going to play along with the Schiff-directed farce. As expected, when he was finally given a chance to speak, he came out swinging. In his opening statement for the impeachment hearing he reminded the millions of television and internet viewers that these proceedings were merely a new episode of the non-stop efforts by the Democrats and the “corrupt media” to hobble, smear, and delegitimize the president with a perpetual barrage of baseless charges.
To make his case, Rep. Nunes put the hearings in the context of the long litany of previous failed efforts by Schiff, Pelosi, and company to unseat President Trump, with their most spectacular fail being the years-long “Mueller investigation” into the alleged “Trump-Russia collusion.”




Without any of the usual pro forma pleasantries, Nunes jumped right in. “In a July open hearing of this committee following publication of the Mueller report, the Democrats engaged in a last-ditch effort to convince the American people that President Trump is a Russian agent,” Nunes began. “That hearing was the pitiful finale of a three-year-long operation by the Democrats, the corrupt media, and partisan bureaucrats to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election,” he continued. “After the spectacular implosion of their Russia hoax on July 24, in which they spent years denouncing any Republican who ever shook hands with a Russian, on July 25 they turned on a dime and now claim the real malfeasance is Republicans’ dealings with Ukraine.”
Rep. Nunes continued:
In the blink of an eye, we’re asked to simply:
• forget about Democrats on this committee falsely claiming they had “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion between President Trump and the Russians;
• forget about them reading fabrications of Trump-Russia collusion from the Steele dossier into the congressional record;
• forget about them trying to obtain nude pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials;
• forget about them leaking a false story to CNN, while he was testifying to our committee, claiming Donald Trump Jr. had colluded with Wikileaks;
• and forget about countless other deceptions, large and small, that make them the last people on earth with the credibility to hurl more preposterous accusations at their political opponents.
And yet now we’re supposed to take these people at face value when they trot out a new batch of allegations.
After running through a litany (albeit abbreviated) of previous Democrat malfeasance and deception, Nunes cited some of what he called “typical signs” that the current Trump-Ukraine issue “is just a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign.” He cited, for example:
• After vowing publicly that impeachment requires bipartisan support, Democrats are pushing impeachment forward without the backing of a single House Republican.
• The witnesses deemed suitable for television by the Democrats were put through a closed-door audition process in a cult-like atmosphere in the basement of the Capitol, where the Democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and one-sided leaks, and later selectively released transcripts in a highly staged manner.
• Violating their own guidelines, the Democrats repeatedly redacted from the transcripts the name of Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee who worked with Ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the Trump campaign, which she provided to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Democrats rejected most of the Republicans’ witness requests, resulting in a horrifically one-sided process where crucial witnesses are denied a platform if their testimony doesn’t support the Democrats’ absurd accusations. Notably, they are trying to impeach the President for inquiring about Hunter Biden’s activities, yet they refused our request to hear from Biden himself.
• The whistleblower was acknowledged to have a bias against President Trump, and his attorney touted a “coup” against the President and called for his impeachment just weeks after his election…
“I’ve noted before,” said Nunes, “that the Democrats have a long habit of accusing Republicans of offences they themselves are committing.” As two examples of this habit, he observed that:
• For years they accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia when they themselves were colluding with Russia by funding and spreading the Steele dossier, which relied on Russian sources.
• And now they accuse President Trump of malfeasance in Ukraine when they themselves are culpable. The Democrats cooperated in Ukrainian election meddling, and they defend Hunter Biden’s securing of a lavishly paid position with a corrupt Ukrainian company, all while his father served as vice president.
Denouncing “this hypocrisy,” Rep. Nunes that “we should not hold any hearings at all until we get answers to three crucial questions the Democrats are determined to avoid asking.” Those questions, he said are:
• First, what is the full extent of the Democrats’ prior coordination with the Whistleblower and who else did the Whistleblower coordinate this effort with?
• Second, what is the full extent of Ukraine’s election meddling against the Trump campaign?
• And third, why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden, what did he do for them, and did his position affect any U.S. government actions under the Obama administration?
‘Rep. Nunes concluded his statement by charging: “This spectacle is doing great damage to our country. It’s nothing more than an impeachment process in search of a crime.”
It was no surprise that Schiff pointedly ignored Nunes’ charges, but he had more difficulty keeping all of the other Republican members of the committee gagged throughout the orchestrated kangaroo trial. Reps. John Ratcliffe, Jim Jordan, and Elise Stefanik especially appeared to give Schiff heartburn, as they methodically took apart the testimony of Schiff’s star witnesses, State Department official George Kent and acting U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine William Taylor.
Rep. Jordan (R-Ohio) went after Amb. Taylor, who has admitted that his alleged knowledge of the alleged Trump “pressure” on Zelensky comes from hearsay conversations several times removed. And yet, he stated it was his “clear understanding” that President Trump had acted improperly. Rep. Jordan noted that in his sworn deposition Amb. Taylor had noted he had met with President Zelensky in person three times and that the Ukrainian president had never mentioned any pressure or quid pro quo demand from President Trump. Jordan then read the sworn testimony of Ambassador Gordon Sondland concerning Taylor’s daisy chain of evidence: “Ambassador Taylor says that he recalls that I told Mr. Morrison that I convinced Mr. Yermak in connection with Vice President Pence’s meeting to Warsaw, and so we have six people having four conversations in one sentence and you are telling me this is where you got the clear understanding [ that Trump had committed an impeachable offense]?” Jordan asked Taylor. For emphasis, Jordan re-read the statement and added: “I’ve seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this.”
Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former federal prosecutor, nailed the two witnesses with a a very basic and pertinent question. “So, in this impeachment hearing today where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call?” Rep. Ratcliffe asked Kent and Taylor. “Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?” Stony silence. Neither “star witness” had an answer.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...s-coup-attempt

[devil21]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Such riveting drama! How will it turn out? Tune in next time to find out on The Apprentice: Oval Office Edition. Check local listings.


(the folks at Langley are laughing their asses off that people actually believe there's a CIA whistleblower with the last name CIAramella.)

[Swordsmyth]

We did solve at least one nagging mystery -- Trump's crime. It's never been clear exactly what Democrats believe is the impeachable offense here. But now we know. It's this:Donald Trump: Wouldn't it actually be wonderful if we could get along with Russia? Wouldn't that be nice?
If we get along with Russia, we'd go out together with others and we knock the hell out of ISIS. Wouldn't that be great?
So that was August of 2016. "Wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?" It turns out that voters agreed with that view. They elected Donald Trump president just three months after he said that.
But permanent Washington was appalled -- scandalized, really. Getting along with Russia isn't simply considered an alternative view here. It's a crime.


Listen to State Department veteran George Kent, one of the witnesses who testified Wednesday, explain that conflict with Russia is the entire point of American foreign policy.
George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for Europe: The United States has a very clear national interest at stake in Ukraine. Ukraine's success is very much in our national interest in the way we have defined our national interest broadly in Europe for the past 75 years. Our strategic game for the entirety of my foreign service career is not possible without a Ukraine whole, free and at peace, including Crimea and the Donbass territories currently occupied by Russia.
OK, you need to get a pen. This is getting complex, but it's important.
"The territorial integrity of Ukraine is essential to America's national interest." Now, our own borders mean nothing, of course -- defending them is racist, and it's immoral. Everyone in Washington knows that and they'll remind you of it, if you think otherwise.

If we're really being honest here, Russia poses no threat to the United States at all.

But Ukraine's borders -- and by the way the borders of Crimea and Donbass, wherever those places might be -- those are vitally important matters and have been, George Kent tells us, for 75 years or so. Or as he puts it, "for the entirety of my foreign service career."
So back off Donald Trump, with your wild ideas about changing things simply because the world is totally different now, and voters want to move on! Moving on isn't allowed here. Change is prohibited.
Career bureaucrat William Taylor agreed.
William Taylor, the charge d’affaires in Kiev: Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country, as well as Europe. Ukraine is on the front line in the conflict with a newly aggressive Russia.
OK, for God's sake, America, listen to what this man is saying. And we're quoting: "Ukraine is on the front line in a conflict with a newly aggressive Russia."
So we need Ukraine like a drowning man needs a life ring, -- or more precisely, like an alcoholic needs a drink. We've been doing it this way for so long that we are addicted. Too many careers depend upon keeping our assumptions exactly what they were in the fall of 1977, when fighting the Soviet menace consumed the lion's share of our federal budget. By the way, if we don't, they could invade Afghanistan, which is strategically essential, as you know.


So here in Washington, that's what we're doing. Our real fear is that the rest of America will at some point discover that the Soviet Union no longer exists. We're afraid they'll learn that Russia's economy is now the size of Italy, that their military budget is one-tenth of ours. That their only aircraft carrier needs to be towed around the ocean because it's broken; that their best scientists and engineers have moved to New Jersey, leaving them unable to build a working escalator. That, if we're really being honest here, Russia poses no threat to the United States at all.
Washington doesn't want you to know that, which is why William Taylor and George Kent and many of their friends spend all day insisting that Russia remains a moral threat to our country.
Kent: Ultimately, Ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the United States within NATO. U.S. and NATO ally trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavari near the Polish border and elsewhere.
Taylor: We and NATO began to provide military assistance to Ukraine's Armed Forces in the form of training, advice, military equipment and weapons.



Man, feel better -- rest easy, America. NATO is providing critical military assistance to our key ally, Ukraine, in a struggle against Leonid Brezhnev and the Red Army.
We're fighting them in Crimea. Why? So we don't have to fight them in Cleveland.
That's what they're telling you. That's what they're demanding that you believe.
Trump, by the way, disagrees with that. He is saying things like this:
Trump: If you look at the Ukraine, we're the ones always fighting on the Ukraine. I never hear any other countries even mentioned. Ukraine is very far away from us. How come the countries near the Ukraine, surrounding the Ukraine -- how come they're not opening up and they're not at least protesting? I never hear anything from anybody except the United States. What I'm saying is NATO is obsolete. NATO is obsolete, and it's extremely expensive to the United States, disproportionately so.



"Ukraine is very far away from us." That can be Trump's campaign slogan. In fact, let's hope it is Trump's campaign slogan.
Now, it's not a sentence it's going to get you 800 on the SAT, obviously. But there is a kind of simple brilliance to it. It implies a question that official Washington cannot answer. And the question is this: Why exactly are we doing things this way? How does it help America?
For daring to ask that question -- which is the only question that matters ever -- they are impeaching Trump.

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tuck...chable-offense

[Danke]

[Brian4Liberty]

Day 2

Ambassador Yovanovitch

[Brian4Liberty]

We did solve at least one nagging mystery -- Trump's crime. It's never been clear exactly what Democrats believe is the impeachable offense here. But now we know. It's this:Donald Trump: Wouldn't it actually be wonderful if we could get along with Russia? Wouldn't that be nice?
If we get along with Russia, we'd go out together with others and we knock the hell out of ISIS. Wouldn't that be great?
So that was August of 2016. "Wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia?" It turns out that voters agreed with that view. They elected Donald Trump president just three months after he said that.
But permanent Washington was appalled -- scandalized, really. Getting along with Russia isn't simply considered an alternative view here. It's a crime.
...
More at: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tuck...chable-offense

Tucker is one of the few who will call that out. Kudos to him.



Bucking the MIC/neoconservative agenda is the biggest “crime” that can be committed in the US today by a politician.

[Schifference]

The guy behind the counsel is huge!

[Brian4Liberty]

If they say Chalupa one more time, I will have no choice but to go to Taco Bell...

[acptulsa]

He doesn't need to read any of that. He already knows (has been told) everything that he needs to know.

It's critical that he closes his mind to new information in order to hold on to his unreasoned beliefs.






(Side note: I wonder what sort of culture would produce a person like that... )

..

Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up.

[Todd]

Bernie is the son of immigrants.

Liberty culture is being destroyed by excessive immigration.

Wrong. Liberty culture being destroyed by unfettered gubment goodies being farmed out to anyone with a pulse. Take that incentive away and I don't give a rats ass who comes into this country.

Are you really that bat$#@! stupid?

[Todd]

Oh man, you have such strong opinions but know so little...

I commend to you Rothbard's paper "World War I as Fulfillment: Power & The Intellectuals."

After you read that (only after, I emphasize), look up Mencius Moldbug and read his treatment of progressivism.

My money is on "notgondoit"

[Swordsmyth]

Wrong. Liberty culture being destroyed by unfettered gubment goodies being farmed out to anyone with a pulse. Take that incentive away and I don't give a rats ass who comes into this country.

Are you really that bat$#@! stupid?

And the immigrants from anti-liberty cultures have made the free stuff problem much worse by voting for it, voting to keep and expand it and spreading the culture of it.

If we did away with it all and allowed an unlimited number more to come they would create it again.

[acptulsa]

And the immigrants from anti-liberty cultures have made the free stuff problem much worse by voting for it, voting to keep and expand it and spreading the culture of it.

If we did away with it all and allowed an unlimited number more to come they would create it again.

If they were the only people voting for it, it wouldn't exist.

If they were the majority of people voting for it, it wouldn't exist.

If they were fully one quarter of the people voting for it, it wouldn't exist.

[Swordsmyth]

If they were the only people voting for it, it wouldn't exist.

If they were the majority of people voting for it, it wouldn't exist.

If they were fully one quarter of the people voting for it, it wouldn't exist.

They vote for it at higher rates and they spread the culture of it.
They make the difference in favor of it and have for generations.

[Todd]

And the immigrants from anti-liberty cultures have made the free stuff problem much worse by voting for it, voting to keep and expand it and spreading the culture of it.

If we did away with it all and allowed an unlimited number more to come they would create it again.

Nice conjecture.

[Swordsmyth]

Nice conjecture.

It's a fact demonstrated by history.

[dannno]

An interesting word, enough.

Really this should be enough for anybody to know this whole thing is horse $#@!, all in Biden's own words.

[Todd]

It's a fact demonstrated by history.

Congrats on your ability to beg the question. Bull$#@!