Hunter Biden Testifies

[Brian4Liberty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZfaejBfYB4

https://twitter.com/asholiver/status...47736833638457

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/ByronDonalds/sta...59278241259749

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/st...84939819397346

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/GOPoversight/sta...79363261608303

[Bern]

[Valli6]

Hunter Biden defied a lawful subpoena today, and we will now initiate contempt of Congress proceedings...

So will they be sending feds to arrest him, haul him in and put him in shackles - like they did to Trump's guy while he was trying to board a plane? When will this happen? What has to happen first? I don't want to miss it!

[TheCount]

So will they be sending feds to arrest him, haul him in and put him in shackles - like they did to Trump's guy while he was trying to board a plane? When will this happen? What has to happen first? I don't want to miss it!

It'd be awkward to arrest him for ignoring a congressional subpoena given that half of the representatives on the committee have also ignored congressional subpoenas.

[CaptUSA]

I mean, ok. I guess we can go after those who benefit from a corrupted system, but at some point we really need to address the actual corruption. The system itself is corrupt. Almost all politicians and bureaucrats benefit from it, as well as their families and friends.

Even if they pin something on Hunter or Joe or Don or Mitch or Nancy, the system will survive. And then next one in line will trade favors for money and power. Nothing changes until you take away their ability to trade favors.

[TheCount]

I mean, ok. I guess we can go after those who benefit from a corrupted system, but at some point we really need to address the actual corruption. The system itself is corrupt. Almost all politicians and bureaucrats benefit from it, as well as their families and friends.

Even if they pin something on Hunter or Joe or Don or Mitch or Nancy, the system will survive. And then next one in line will trade favors for money and power. Nothing changes until you take away their ability to trade favors.

That is the ultimate problem, absolutely.


From my point of view, neither "side" wants to reduce their own power while they're in power. This is why you end up with typical swing in opinion, even here, between one administration and the next. The same person who will loudly oppose every dollar of spending under an "opposing" administration looks the other way for record-breaking budgets from their team.

I'm honestly not sure how you overcome that inertia.

[oyarde]

the biden crime family imbecile bagman goes to washington , it is like a b movie script.

[Anti Globalist]

I fully expect Biden to end up pardoning his son so he faces no jail time.

[CaptUSA]

That is the ultimate problem, absolutely.


From my point of view, neither "side" wants to reduce their own power while they're in power. This is why you end up with typical swing in opinion, even here, between one administration and the next. The same person who will loudly oppose every dollar of spending under an "opposing" administration looks the other way for record-breaking budgets from their team.

Well now, glad to see that you admit when it happens on your side. But from my vantage point, that happens far less frequently here. Oh sure, we have the Trumpsters and you lefties that try to stir $#@! up here, but the Ron Paul folks don't fall into that Team Red vs. Team Blue nonsense that you guys do.

We want to take away their ability to trade favors by making their power so inconsequential that it's not worth it to anyone to buy it.

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/tuxlemons/status...42923786592404

[TheCount]

Well now, glad to see that you admit when it happens on your side. But from my vantage point, that happens far less frequently here. Oh sure, we have the Trumpsters and you lefties that try to stir $#@! up here, but the Ron Paul folks don't fall into that Team Red vs. Team Blue nonsense that you guys do.

We want to take away their ability to trade favors by making their power so inconsequential that it's not worth it to anyone to buy it.

I think that you are engaging in "no true scotsman" with "oh but those aren't Ron Paul folks."

The Republican party is extremely adept at using wedge issues to create a lot of "I'm for small government but in this case" and "I'm against government spending but in this case" even among the standard folks here on RPF.

Easy examples are election security (mandatory ID, federal control), immigration/border security (verify, spending, policy, visas), culture war (gay marriage, trans everything), economy (protectionism) and even military (so long as you choose the correct opponent.

It's just a matter of finding the one issue that is the "but in this case" for the person and then it's off to the races. Which, of course, is the real reason the de facto GOP platform is a shotgun blast of fear mongering on seemingly unrelated issues.

There are very few people here who don't have an issue that causes the above. Including me, I struggle with it.


And I'm not anything even vaguely close to a leftist. If you think I am, you must've never met one.

[acptulsa]

And I'm not anything even vaguely close to a leftist. If you think I am, you must've never met one.

Either that, or you spend all your time playing snarky devil's advocate, and never just lay off that and talk. Nobody can reach a useful conclusion on data that skewed.

So, like, want some cheese..?

[ClaytonB]

And I'm not anything even vaguely close to a leftist.

I think that you are engaging in "no true scotsman" with "oh but those aren't Ron Paul folks."

The Republican party is extremely adept at using wedge issues to create a lot of "I'm for small government but in this case" and "I'm against government spending but in this case" even among the standard folks here on RPF.

Easy examples are election security (mandatory ID, federal control), immigration/border security (verify, spending, policy, visas), culture war (gay marriage, trans everything), economy (protectionism) and even military (so long as you choose the correct opponent.

It's just a matter of finding the one issue that is the "but in this case" for the person and then it's off to the races. Which, of course, is the real reason the de facto GOP platform is a shotgun blast of fear mongering on seemingly unrelated issues.

Well, I've found the ONE thing that I agree with TheCount on... that's an exactly correct analysis and a splendid description of it.

Substitute "non-aggression" for "small-government" and "aggression" for "government spending" and you will finally achieve true Rothbardian nirvana. When people finally understand that aggression is always, always, always wrong, no matter what the excuse, we might finally be ready for that government which is best...

[TheCount]

Well, I've found the ONE thing that I agree with TheCount on... that's an exactly correct analysis and a splendid description of it.

Substitute "non-aggression" for "small-government" and "aggression" for "government spending" and you will finally achieve true Rothbardian nirvana. When people finally understand that aggression is always, always, always wrong, no matter what the excuse, we might finally be ready for that government which is best...

I don't think that everyone would categorize, for example, anti-gay and anti-trans policies as aggression, which is why I prefer the term small government.

[acptulsa]

I don't think that everyone would categorize, for example, anti-gay and anti-trans policies as aggression, which is why I prefer the term small government.

Kind of prefer the term myself. Can't even get people to see that most of the current pro-gay and (particularly) pro-trans policies are deadly aggression.

[TheCount]

Kind of prefer the term myself. Can't even get people to see that most of the current pro-gay and (particularly) pro-trans policies are deadly aggression.

I think that both gay and trans issues are major failures for small government advocates.

In both cases, all prominent voices were either pro or anti. That's a losing argument, because 1) both sides are big government and 2) the framing forces all of the "I don't care, leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" people to the pro side.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/tuxlemons/status...42923786592404

It's a relevant point to make, but it is also diversionary tactic being used by the Bidens and Democrats right now. Focus only on Hunter's vices, and it's just a one man, personal issue. It doesn't lead back to PedoHitler, Obama, Hillary, etc. And it always ends with: "Don't pick on the poor sick addict. It's not his fault, it's a disease. He's the victim here!"

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't think that everyone would categorize, for example, anti-gay and anti-trans policies as aggression, which is why I prefer the term small government.

"Anti-gay" and "anti-trans" are convenient rallying cries for both sides of the issue. "Don't vote for evil Republicans, they want to genocide gay and trans people!" "Don't vote for Democrats, they want to turn your children gay!"

And once "gay" became a relatively universal non-issue, the left upped the ante to make it an issue again by exposing children to drag strip shows and teaching questionable things (grooming? brainwashing? gender confusion) to children.

Even with small, limited government, some basic laws (or rules, morals, etc) are always considered necessary. Laws against murder, theft, assault, and children going to strip clubs are generally regarded as necessary laws, no matter how small your "government" entity may be.

[TheCount]

"Anti-gay" and "anti-trans" are convenient rallying cries for both sides of the issue. "Don't vote for evil Republicans, they want to genocide gay and trans people!" "Don't vote for Democrats, they want to turn your children gay!"

And once "gay" became a relatively universal non-issue, the left upped the ante to make it an issue again by exposing children to drag strip shows and teaching questionable things (grooming? brainwashing? gender confusion) to children.

Even with small, limited government, some basic laws (or rules, morals, etc) are always considered necessary. Laws against murder, theft, assault, and children going to strip clubs are generally regarded as necessary laws, no matter how small your "government" entity may be.

Don't pretend that the issue at hand is whether or not children can go to strip clubs.

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't pretend that the issue at hand is whether or not children can go to strip clubs.

LOL. Nice cherry-pick.

Don't pretend it's not about that.

[TheCount]

LOL. Nice cherry-pick.

Don't pretend it's not about that.

When there's only one cherry, there's no picking to be done.

[Snowball]

So will they be sending feds to arrest him, haul him in and put him in shackles - like they did to Trump's guy while he was trying to board a plane? When will this happen? What has to happen first? I don't want to miss it!

NEVER.

[acptulsa]

When there's only one cherry, there's no picking to be done.

Then why didn't you just leave it on the tree? Oh no, you just had to sink your grubby fingers into it...

[TheCount]

Then why didn't you just leave it on the tree? Oh no, you just had to sink your grubby fingers into it...

Ah, it's my fault for responding. I see.

[Anti Federalist]

Don't pretend that the issue at hand is whether or not children can go to strip clubs.

It's not.

It's much, much worse than that.

"I have a right to ass rape your 8 year old" is about where the Marxist wreckers are at.

[Occam's Banana]

Hunter Indicted | Part Of The Problem 1068
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ileRrYngslk
{Dave Smith | 16 December 2023}

On this episode of Part Of The Problem Dave and Robbie first take a look at Vivek Ramaswamy and his battle with CNN at their town hall meeting. We then take a look at Hunter Biden's recent press conference discussing his Indictment.

[Brian4Liberty]

And today, Hunter Biden "testifies" again. In what appears to be a legal stunt, Hunter Biden showed up in a committee meeting where they were going to vote on whether to hold Hunter in contempt of Congress. Jamie Raskin, Demorat Supreme, seemed to be in on the stunt and acted as Hunter's defense attorney. Their supposed legal reasoning is that because Hunter walked into the meeting today, he did come to Congress, and therefore can not be held in contempt. Ironically, the Democrats and Hunter have engaged in a contemptible stunt to avoid contempt charges.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymAqD4tbW3A