Thomas Massie is on Timcast Live now

[nobody's_hero]

Didn't catch the beginning of it

[jkr]

[nobody's_hero]

So yeah I know a lot of folks are gonna be turned off by this considering Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tim, for whatever reasons, but I'm under the impression that MTG might have a Congress-crush on Massie. She credits him for being an inspiration for her when she first arrived in Congress.

I realize it is 2 hours long, but there's a lot of good stuff in here.

Talk of secession,
does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons?,
did you know there is a penalty box on the House floor for congress critters that misbehave? (I'm sort of being hyperbolic, but that's what Massie calls it, lol. it was supposed to be an isolation room for Congressmen who are feeling sick but still want to show up to vote, but that rarely happens, even when they aren't sick)
Did you know that Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene both have racked up over $100,000 in Capitol hill mask fines?

"and much, much more!" lol

[dannno]

Didn't catch the beginning of it

You can always rewind to the beginning, even when they are live.

Great segment.. about to go watch the "member's only" segment at timcast.com where they talk about stuff you can't talk about on youtube.

Will report back soon.

[dannno]

Extended Part 1:

Massie invented a solar powered chicken coup mover that moved the coup every so often, but was disappointed when the battery died a year later and had to be replaced. So he hooked up some capacitors to the solar panel instead, and was able to move it an inch every hour.

They talk about vaccine horror stories, then get sidetracked by Seamus when MTG brought up that Galileo was put on house arrest by the Catholic church for his beliefs. Seamus is Catholic and had to correct part of her story and that took forever so they finally had to cut him off so they could show the video I posted in this thread:

First Woke Comedian To Get a Genuine Laugh From Audience
Not the way she was hoping for.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-From-Audience


More vax bashing on all sides.

One of the things Massie discussed, which he talked about in the main segment, was how the vaccine testing actually showed negative efficacy for those who had already been infected with Covid. He called them up (CDC, I think?), assumed it was a typo, and they got their top scientists and they called him "Eagle Eye Massie" and promised to get it fixed.. Never got fixed. He has it all on tape, is considering releasing them to the public. They've already been written about, so it's not new information that would be available, this happened over a year ago.

[dannno]

Extended Part 2:

Discussion of Epipen comes up, which gets a person out of anaphylactic shock and still costs $400. Massie says that the patent on the original formulation expired a while back, so they had to create a new formulation. He says that the reason a competitor can't come out and make a cheap version of the old formula is because it would need to be FDA approved.

Tim makes an ingenious suggestion of selling epipens with the old formula that say "For use on animals. Not for human consumption."

Thomas Massie replies "([LOUD WHISPER] THAT'S THE SOLUTION FOR EVERYTHING!!!!! Think about it, you just put it on your raw milk, For Pets Only. Not for human consumption."

Tim says he has seen raw milk that is being sold for pets around where he lives, but was clearly being purchased for human consumption, so apparently this is already being done. That's some good entrepreneurial spirit.

I guess Tim got ahead of Thomas, because Thomas said it costs $.25 for a dose of horse epinephrine. A horse is bigger than a human, so less than $.10 for a human would be my guess. Plus a syringe for $1.50.

We are really getting $#@!ed.

Did you know the CEO of Pfizer is a veterinarian?? And they make fun of us for using horse paste??

[familydog]

Great discussion and highly recommended. Just ignore the incorrect historical takes by Tim and Massie.

[TheTexan]

MTG has the right idea on national divorce

Tim seems to be resisting the idea.

[A Son of Liberty]

MTG has the right idea on national divorce

Tim seems to be resisting the idea.

I was actually really impressed with her response; when Ian (I think?) asked, "how to do solve it?", she IMMEDIATELY piped up and said, "NATIONAL DIVORCE!"

Tim is constantly on about how there is no way for that to happen with out violence, but she even responded to that well by pointing out that it could be handled as easily via negotiation.

As an aside, and I'm blanking on where I read/heard this recently (may have been here), but this is a dead-end argument against national divorce - if a husband is threatening to kill a wife who's considering leaving him, that's an even better argument on behalf of leaving him! You don't stay in a relationship that is predicated on the initiation of violence!

I've been fairly impressed with her during both of her appearances on the show.

[TheTexan]

I was actually really impressed with her response; when Ian (I think?) asked, "how to do solve it?", she IMMEDIATELY piped up and said, "NATIONAL DIVORCE!"

Tim is constantly on about how there is no way for that to happen with out violence, but she even responded to that well by pointing out that it could be handled as easily via negotiation.

As an aside, and I'm blanking on where I read/heard this recently (may have been here), but this is a dead-end argument against national divorce - if a husband is threatening to kill a wife who's considering leaving him, that's an even better argument on behalf of leaving him! You don't stay in a relationship that is predicated on the initiation of violence!

I've been fairly impressed with her during both of her appearances on the show.

I suspect that a lot of people (including Tim) who play the "but civil war" card aren't a big fan of secession regardless of whether or not war would be necessary.

With that said, you're right, it doesn't even matter. What needs to be done, needs to be done. To do less, is cowardly.

[A Son of Liberty]

I suspect that a lot of people (including Tim) who play the "but civil war" card aren't a big fan of secession regardless of whether or not war would be necessary.

With that said, you're right, it doesn't even matter. What needs to be done, needs to be done. To do less, is cowardly.

Yeah, I don't really get the timidity regarding civil war. And I get that this sounds incredibly casual. But we're talking about human freedom here. These are not "light and transient" causes... Of course all other means must be explored before the lives of millions are disrupted and upended. But the dissolution of the union should not only be on the table but should have been for over 100 years now. I'm personally of a view that what is in place is an effort to subvert human freedom on a global scale, and literally the ONLY way to disrupt that motive is the utter destruction of everything they have erected toward that end, which is to stay every state on the planet worth mentioning.

But I digress...

That said, I was particularly impressed with her comment about people assuming that the US will just always continue as-is, geographically. Typically you don't get that kind of depth of thought (and I realize that's not particularly deep, but impressively so for a politico) amongst Republicans. R's tend to believe that the geographic USA! must always remain the geographic USA!

[TheTexan]

Yeah, I don't really get the timidity regarding civil war. And I get that this sounds incredibly casual. But we're talking about human freedom here. These are not "light and transient" causes... Of course all other means must be explored before the lives of millions are disrupted and upended. But the dissolution of the union should not only be on the table but should have been for over 100 years now. I'm personally of a view that what is in place is an effort to subvert human freedom on a global scale, and literally the ONLY way to disrupt that motive is the utter destruction of everything they have erected toward that end, which is to stay every state on the planet worth mentioning.

But I digress...

That said, I was particularly impressed with her comment about people assuming that the US will just always continue as-is, geographically. Typically you don't get that kind of depth of thought (and I realize that's not particularly deep, but impressively so for a politico) amongst Republicans. R's tend to believe that the geographic USA! must always remain the geographic USA!

Yep. MTG won a lot of points with me on this podcast. I always had a good feeling about her.

(and Massie of course, it goes without saying, was awesome as usual)

[Occam's Banana]

As an aside, and I'm blanking on where I read/heard this recently (may have been here), but this is a dead-end argument against national divorce - if a husband is threatening to kill a wife who's considering leaving him, that's an even better argument on behalf of leaving him! You don't stay in a relationship that is predicated on the initiation of violence!

This might have been where you read it:

Rebuttal To Anti-Independence Letter By State Rep.
https://libertyblock.com/rebuttal-to...-by-state-rep/
Published by Elliot Axelman on December 29, 2021

[...]

Not to mention that federal officials with the backing of the US military, the most well-funded and prepared military in the world, would never allow NH to secede. Every NH Guardsman swears an oath to the US and NH Constitutions. They are bound to protect the “perpetual Union” our US Constitution establishes. This is part of the principle of “dual enlistment,” under which persons enlisted in state militias (National Guard) units simultaneously enlist in the National Guard of the United States. And when National Guard units are called to active duty in the federal service, Guardsmen are relieved of their status in the state militia. The NH National Guard would immediately help federal troops reestablish control over any purportedly “sovereign” NH.

I already alluded to this earlier, but if your best argument against leaving an abusive partner is that ‘if you try to leave, he will kill you, then you have a terrible argument. If I were advising my friend to leave her husband, the fact that her husband is so violent that he might kill her if she tried leaving would only give me more reason to advise her to leave, not more reason to stay. But he mentions the sacred ‘Constitution’ here, so let’s address it. [...]

[...]

The last Constitutional argument is straightforward. It does not matter whether or not secession is illegal. What matters is that the Union beat the Confederacy in the Civil War. Once this happened, the illegality of unilateral secession was de facto established. The legality of secession was answered at Appomattox Court House in 1865 with the conclusion of the Civil War. It also means the repercussions for attempting unilateral secession have been decided too. The federal government must punish states and their leaders who try to secede.

Ahh, one of my favorite arguments against state independence: Might makes right! “Sweetheart, your husband may beat the hell out of you, starve you, and abuse you in every which way, but the legality of divorce or separation was settled when he beat you into a coma last time you tried to leave him. So, you will just need to stay with him forever. Might makes right. He is stronger than you. Therefore, he is right and you are wrong.”, he advises his female friend after she cries to him about her abusive husband.

[...]

[A Son of Liberty]

Bingo! + rep to you, sir!

[nobody's_hero]

As an aside, and I'm blanking on where I read/heard this recently (may have been here), but this is a dead-end argument against national divorce - if a husband is threatening to kill a wife who's considering leaving him, that's an even better argument on behalf of leaving him! You don't stay in a relationship that is predicated on the initiation of violence!

I suspect that a lot of people (including Tim) who play the "but civil war" card aren't a big fan of secession regardless of whether or not war would be necessary.

For me, I would have no problem with secession at this point, given the alternative we are steering ever-more rapidly towards, but I don't subscribe to the notion that it will not be without violence. It's just that I think that's somewhat Pollyanna-thinking. If the sentiment was evenly mutual, perhaps it would be peaceful, but I just don't see one side deciding to leave and the other being like "sure, bye." Personally if the left ever decided to leave, I would help them pack their bags, and enacting violence to keep them in the union would be as absurd as it would be unethical.

It's not an argument against succession or an attempt to dissuade people from it, more like, "okay, just prepare yourself mentally for the reality of what is likely to happen."

I also think that if America historically had been a little (ok, a lot) more vigilant in maintaining a republican form of government—where basically the only things the federal government does is deliver mail and debate whether or not to go to war—we would be much better off, and there would not be much ponderance of secession these days.

also @dannno thanks for the cliff notes on the member's only portion

[TheTexan]

For me, I would have no problem with secession at this point, given the alternative we are steering ever-more rapidly towards, but I don't subscribe to the notion that it will not be without violence. I think that's somewhat Pollyanna-thinking. If the sentiment was evenly mutual, perhaps, but I just don't see one side deciding to leave and the other being like "sure, bye."

I'm slightly more optimistic. I have no doubt that they will be calling for war. But there is a big difference between calling for war, and actually going to war.

I don't think they're willing to pay that price.

But I am.

The best thing we can do, each of us, is to get enough weapons, ammo, food, and supplies, to make sure that if war does break out, it won't be a fair fight.

With supply lines mostly coming from China these days, its important to have double of what you think you might need. Fuel, comms, batteries, etc.

If they understand that we are ready, willing, and prepared to go to war - perhaps we won't have to.

[A Son of Liberty]

For me, I would have no problem with secession at this point, given the alternative we are steering ever-more rapidly towards, but I don't subscribe to the notion that it will not be without violence. It's just that I think that's somewhat Pollyanna-thinking. If the sentiment was evenly mutual, perhaps it would be peaceful, but I just don't see one side deciding to leave and the other being like "sure, bye." Personally if the left ever decided to leave, I would help them pack their bags, and enacting violence to keep them in the union would be as absurd as it would be unethical.

I also think that if America historically had been a little (ok, a lot) more vigilant in maintaining a republican form of government—where the only things the federal government does is deliver mail and debate whether or not to go to war—we would be much better off, and there would not be much ponderance of secession these days.

also @danno thanks for the cliff notes on the member's only portion

Seconded on @dannno providing notes on the member's section...

To clarify, I'm perfectly fine if secession turns violent, merely from a personal perspective. I'm single, I'm debt-free, I've gone Galt. I really don't have anything to lose. I'm aging and not much of an asset anymore, but I'm willing to sacrifice what I DO have to posterity. And while I sympathize with those who do have something to lose today, I'm more concerned about how the cost increases everyday we fail to act.

[nobody's_hero]

Great discussion and highly recommended. Just ignore the incorrect historical takes by Tim and Massie.

There were a couple of cringey moments but to miss watching the rest of it based on that, would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I'm glad that when they disagreed on an issue, they picked up talking about the next issue like it was nothing.

There were 50,000+ people watching at some moments while it was live.

My mother actually was the one who let me know the interview was happening, as I don't watch as much of this stuff as she does.. She was watching Timcast on her phone, walked into the room and said, "who is this?" Holding up the phone. "I always liked him but I don't know who he is."

And I was like, "Oh yeah, Thomas Massie —wait, is that live?" LOL.

[Invisible Man]

I don't think they're willing to pay that price.

Not willing to pay the price of spilling the blood of other peoples' kids?

They're willing. And they're looking for any opportunity that presents itself to do it.

[dannno]

I think Tim's view on national divorce is that it is certainly preferable to civil war. He always talks about how we are approaching "hot" civil war, and how we are already in a 5th generation civil war. I think he thought national divorce was a good idea, until somebody explained to him that it would also inevitably lead to violent conflict, as it did in the first Civil War with Fort Sumter. I think the south wanted to keep some military stuff they had there, and the north said they couldn't? I don't know the full history, but apparently the south was in the process of divorcing from the north and had been for some time, but then there was a dispute about what belonged to who. So not much different from a real divorce, when say the husband and wife both agree to a divorce, then the wife takes the house and the kids and the husband is like wtf.

I think Tim would be all for it, if it could be done relatively peacefully.

I also think that pretty much everybody, even here, would prefer if the left would wake tf up, realize they've been lied to, and at minimum support an increase in state's rights and a significant decrease in federal powers, even if they want to keep some leftist policies in their states. That would be preferable to a national divorce, but the odds seem low. That was also discussed.

Also interesting was Tim out-2nd amendmenting Massie

[TheTexan]

Not willing to pay the price of spilling the blood of other peoples' kids?

They're willing. And they're looking for any opportunity that presents itself to do it.

They're willing to have someone else do it for them certainly.

But will these pink haired millennials get off their couch to shed their own blood? I don't think so.

They'll be begging for mercy the first night they have to sleep on dirt or concrete with nothing to support their head but their pack.

On the flip side of that, I could easily imagine MJT, Massie, or anyone on this forum, sleeping in dirt for months at a time without complaint.

Resources and resilience is how wars are won and lost.

[CaptUSA]

Also interesting was Tim out-2nd amendmenting Massie

lol - I saw that as Massie adeptly dodging the trap conversation.

[TheTexan]

I think Tim's view on national divorce is that it is certainly preferable to civil war. He always talks about how we are approaching "hot" civil war, and how we are already in a 5th generation civil war. I think he thought national divorce was a good idea, until somebody explained to him that it would also inevitably lead to violent conflict, as it did in the first Civil War with Fort Sumter. I think the south wanted to keep some military stuff they had there, and the north said they couldn't? I don't know the full history, but apparently the south was in the process of divorcing from the north and had been for some time, but then there was a dispute about what belonged to who. So not much different from a real divorce, when say the husband and wife both agree to a divorce, then the wife takes the house and the kids and the husband is like wtf.

I think Tim would be all for it, if it could be done relatively peacefully.

I also think that pretty much everybody, even here, would prefer if the left would wake tf up, realize they've been lied to, and at minimum support an increase in state's rights and a significant decrease in federal powers, even if they want to keep some leftist policies in their states. That would be preferable to a national divorce, but the odds seem low. That was also discussed.

Also interesting was Tim out-2nd amendmenting Massie

My understanding of the fort situation is quite different from Tim's.

My understanding is that the North was escalating the situation and the South was forced into a position where they had to take the forts or risk losing the war before it had even started.

( and the forts belonged to the south anyway, this idea that they belonged to the "Federal Government" is horse$#@!. )

[Occam's Banana]

For me, I would have no problem with secession at this point, given the alternative we are steering ever-more rapidly towards, but I don't subscribe to the notion that it will not be without violence. I think that's somewhat Pollyanna-thinking. If the sentiment was evenly mutual, perhaps, but I just don't see one side deciding to leave and the other being like "sure, bye."

Whether it is "evenly mutual" or not, their "sentiment" is completely irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is whether they have both the will and the wherewithal to successfully enforce their sentiment (whatever it may be), despite the costs of doing so.

The old-school, hard-line communists had plenty of sentiment against perestroika and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, but it happened anyway (and was remarkably peaceful). Merely having a sentiment (no matter how ardent that sentiment may be) and actually being willing and able to pay the costs necessary to secure the object of that sentiment are entirely different things.

Abraham Lincoln, for example, was both willing and able to pay those costs (which included his own life, as it turned out).

On the other hand - and for whatever reasons - Yanayev and the other members of the Gang of Eight were not.

If it comes to the test, I suspect there will be more of Yanayev & Co. than of Lincoln in our present-day sentimental unionists.

[Invisible Man]

But will these pink haired millennials get off their couch to shed their own blood? I don't think so..

Definitely not. But they're not the ones calling the shots, nor the ones who really have anything at stake in keeping all of the nuclear missile silos and other strategic items on American soil under the control of the regime in DC.

Also, the federal government is deep in debt, and has every intention of continuing to rack up deficits for the foreseeable future. It depends on future earnings from tax payers from all 50 states in order to make payments on those debts and keep borrowing. The holders of those debts won't be tolerant of that loss of value in the debts they hold. And so, neither will the US politicians who work for them.

[Brian4Liberty]

MTG has the right idea on national divorce

Tim seems to be resisting the idea.

At what point in the OP video do they discuss that?

[dannno]

My understanding of the fort situation is quite different from Tim's.

My understanding is that the North was escalating the situation and the South was forced into a position where they had to take the forts or risk losing the war before it had even started.

( and the forts belonged to the south anyway, this idea that they belonged to the "Federal Government" is horse$#@!. )

I think Tim's understanding might be the same as yours, it is my understanding that is lacking and didn't want to get too specific. I wasn't saying who was right or wrong, just that there was a disagreement over what military bases/equipment belonged to who.

Tim's description of what might happen was something along the lines of that maybe Nevada has a bunch of nukes, and they end up going with the Red states, and then the blue states come in and say, "Hey, those aren't your nukes... we are taking them."

[A Son of Liberty]

They're willing to have someone else do it for them certainly.

But will these pink haired millennials get off their couch to shed their own blood? I don't think so.

They'll be begging for mercy the first night they have to sleep on dirt or concrete with nothing to support their head but their pack.

On the flip side of that, I could easily imagine MJT, Massie, or anyone on this forum, sleeping in dirt for months at a time without complaint.

Resources and resilience is how wars are won and lost.

No offense intended to our millennial members, but I don't know that they have the fortitude to endure the hardship that comes with deprivation.

Speaking as a Gen-X'er, though I've at times become frustrated with some of the political views of our group, I CAN say that we have endured a lot of BULLSH!T in our lives, and have a certain level of resiliency that makes us well-adapted to dealing with pushing through hard times.

If we're going to go through this, we better get about it before the last generation passes that is willing to deal with it.

[A Son of Liberty]

At what point in the OP video do they discuss that?

If I recall correctly it was around 35 min.

[TheTexan]

No offense intended to our millennial members, but I don't know that they have the fortitude to endure the hardship that comes with deprivation.

Speaking as a Gen-X'er, though I've at times become frustrated with some of the political views of our group, I CAN say that we have endured a lot of BULLSH!T in our lives, and have a certain level of resiliency that makes us well-adapted to dealing with pushing through hard times.

If we're going to go through this, we better get about it before the last generation passes that is willing to deal with it.

Yep, now or never.

It's quite sad that future generations may forever live in chains because the chains have gotten just so god-damned comfortable.