Tab Content
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 03:12 AM
    You know they've already been talking about how this might require "booster" vaccination right? Actually it's the vaccine makers pushing this. Real scientist question the need. But guess which "scientists" will be deemed the "real scientists" and which will be deemed quacks?
    7 replies | 126 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:34 PM
    A friend of my reacted to this new this way "This is terrible. She has a right to speak her mind." And I was like "Of course she does. And her fellow republicans had a right not to vote for her." Seriously...much ado about nada.
    87 replies | 1649 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:22 PM
    LOL. So even after Dr. Fauci (the weasel), Joe Biden (the senile) and the CDC (another untrustworthy alphabet agency) all said you had to vaccine or wear a mask, the fascists in New York say you have to vaccine and wear a mask.
    7 replies | 126 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:21 PM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Brian4Liberty again.
    7 replies | 126 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:18 PM
    The irony is angelatc got temp banned here. So each of you got banned on a different platform. Ban banning.
    520 replies | 27281 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:25 PM
    Which is why when you try to remove the nuance, you end up flat. I'm actually glad to see Ron's position on this mirrors my own as I laid out earlier. There is no reason why a private company would do this without government coercion. So if this ever became an issue - which it won't - then you'd have to address the underlying problems. Obviously, some politicians are taking a proactive step to tell businesses to not slice their own throats. Ok - not really necessary, but also not really harmful compared to everything else they do. It's just a political show. But I'd rather have that political show than the opposite. In reality, if DeSantis and Abbot would have banned government from pressuring private companies to institute these vaccine passports, it would have accomplished the same thing without this ridiculous controversy you're trying to drum up. Because companies will NOT do this on their own.
    63 replies | 808 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:57 AM
    From what I've read, weed became officially "marijuana" (it's Mexican nickname) by .gov, to make it sound more evil to Americans & justify prohibiting hemp.
    21 replies | 1293 view(s)
  • osan's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:24 AM Today I begin with the thesis that there is no such thing as a "good" cop. If you are one of those who are ready to jump down my throat and hurl rotten tomatoes at me, I ask that you remain calm until I have explained my position in sufficient detail. Bear in mind that most of what I will assert and attempt to defend bears the modifying amendment of "as currently constituted" and/or "as currently defined". I will do my best to make all of this clear in short order. To begin, I strenuously and unequivocally object to the concept of a "law enforcement officer" for the reason that "law" stands ill-defined in every source I have come to know. In the dozens of attempts at defining "law" that I have read, which range from Bouvier's and other law dictionaries, to various less-formal swags, nowhere have I encountered a definition that was in any way so much as approaching the sufficiency of rigor. This is more than a little surprising, given that the future's of countless lives have hung and continue to hang on the concept, which speaks directly to the much vaunted idea of "justice". How can one have justice if we cannot define that which is just? Even more surprising is the fact that one of the very best treatments on the subject can be found on, a source I generally and validly view with keen suspicion and doubt. And yet, the article acknowledges my assertion that there exist no proper definitions of the term. To wit: There have been several attempts to produce "a universally acceptable definition of law".
    6 replies | 159 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-13-2021, 02:15 PM
    Don't hold your breath. Once things get relegated to the "conspiracy theory" zone, they have a hard time coming back - no matter how much evidence.
    9 replies | 204 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-13-2021, 01:45 PM
    I think it's real. It's making its way through some military FB pages.
    4 replies | 131 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-13-2021, 01:35 PM
    I know you really want to remove all nuance (again to keep it in the theoretical realm), but nuance matters. First of all, this hasn't been a problem in the real world, so we are not likely to see legislation banning this. If it did become an issue, the corporate interests would line up against the ban, because they'd HAVE to ensure that it was as nearly ubiquitous as possible so that they wouldn't be driving their business to their competitors. If there was a collusion among businesses that in turn drove privacy advocates to request a ban on the practice, I'd like to see the bill to address the collusion rather than an outright ban, but that's not the real world either.
    63 replies | 808 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-13-2021, 12:57 PM
    Supposedly taken from Ft. Campbell. Apparently Jim Crow is an instruction manual.
    4 replies | 131 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-13-2021, 12:42 PM
    In the real world, I'd have to see the language of any proposed bill. In theory, businesses should be able to turn away anyone for any reason at any time. But that's not the world we're living in. Government is already forcing businesses to engage in commerce with people that they may not want to. If this fairy-tale ban you're proposing prevented government from coercing businesses to collude with each other I think I might support it.
    63 replies | 808 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-13-2021, 12:32 PM
    :rolleyes: "Do you support a government ban of private anything"???
    63 replies | 808 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-13-2021, 12:30 PM
    I am by no means a crypto expert, but any word on what the impact is to Stablecoins?? My limited understanding is that the various Stablecoins don't use mining as they're pegged to a commodity and therefore don't have the same energy needs.
    10 replies | 250 view(s)
  • Ender's Avatar
    05-12-2021, 03:50 PM
    JFYI- tetanus is not caused by rust or metal, etc. It's caused by poop going into a jab where no air can get in to solve the problem.
    7 replies | 181 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-12-2021, 12:17 PM
    Um... yeah - that's the point. Which answer do you want? If you want people to take your side, ask Q1. If you want them to take the opposite side, ask Q2.
    63 replies | 808 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-12-2021, 09:42 AM
    So, the left is actually supporting Cheney in this. :D Strange bedfellows indeed. There are some actively calling for her to leave the party and become a democrat, now that she has seen the light.
    87 replies | 1649 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-12-2021, 09:41 AM
    Ok, Luntz. Lol. Well, then it's all in how you phrase the question to get the poll results you want, then. "Should the tyrant's pen be able to order how a private business decides which customers to do business with?" Or "Should corporations be prevented from banding together to violate the privacy of American consumers in the name of safety?"
    63 replies | 808 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-12-2021, 09:13 AM
    Poll needs more options. In theory, I wouldn't support a ban - especially, at the federal level. But in reality, the government is so intertwined with business and commerce now. It's hard to imagine a scenario where a "vaccine passport" could remain strictly private. In theory, as a business owner, I should be able to decide to not do business with someone that doesn't live up to whatever parameters I decide. If I want them to provide proof of vaccination, I should be able to tell them to go to a competitor if they don't want to show it to me. But in reality, that's not how it would work. Because it would be in no business's interest to send away their customers over a virus that is not really that harmful, the only way a business would do this is if they could coerce their competitors to do the same. And in today's market, they will leverage government.
    63 replies | 808 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-12-2021, 07:57 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again. "We will have no tolerance for anyone wishing to prevent this 'supply crunch' "
    82 replies | 2149 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-12-2021, 06:12 AM
    Do I hear FU Frank Luntz??
    82 replies | 2149 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    05-12-2021, 04:47 AM
    Pretty soon, Fauci is going to have to plead the Fifth to prevent him from "misleading Congress". When that happens, it's going to be glorious.
    19 replies | 1180 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-11-2021, 06:52 PM
    Good catch! The other weasel phrase is "The NIH isn't funding gain of function research in Wuhan China." Rand held his feet to the fire pretty good. The trick here is that the funding is going to researchers in the United States who then collaborate with their counterparts in China.
    19 replies | 1180 view(s)
  • acptulsa's Avatar
    05-11-2021, 09:36 AM
    Here it is, the 21st Century, and look who has more credibility... :negative: The "Newspaper of Record", holder of 130 Pulitzers and publisher of "all the news that's fit to print" since 1851 :check:. A couple of anonymous guys on the 'net
    82 replies | 2149 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-11-2021, 03:46 AM
    Good point! I thought about that. I could see the police getting involved just on her roommates' report, but they couldn't legally charge him without a statement from the victim that it was rape. I'm not sure why that detail got left out of the news segment. But here's the chilling part. "And while the judge declared the student innocent, he's not out of the woods yet. He says he now has to prove himself to a USC ethics committee that will ultimately decide whether or not he can stay here for the fall semester."
    26 replies | 689 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-11-2021, 03:17 AM
    Obviously more. They were at a frat party. Clearly other people were there and someone could have stumbled upon the scene. I'm not sure why that matters anyway though. At the end of the day we have people engaging in what Working Poor considers immoral behavior. Either that negates their right to claim to be a victim or it doesn't. I was raised not to get drunk in the first place. I could say regarding any woman who got drunk and passed out at a frat party and got raped "Well if you had better morals and not gotten drunk it's unlikely you would have gotten drunk so don't play Ms. Victim." Whenever I hear any of these stories I think of "Wine is a mocker and strong dring is raging and whoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1. And considering that most college students are under 21, there was probably some underage drinking which is also illegal. All of them getting drunk was really the first mistake (or "moral failure" if you will) that led to others. There are men who have been convicted of rape who honestly don't remember having sex with the rape victim because they were so drunk and the woman was so drunk she couldn't give consent. Thankfully in this case all parties were sober enough to give consent so it wasn't rape. She just regretted it the next day because it was a turn off to the guy she really wanted to date. Now here's the kicker. Maybe if she and the black man she had accused of rape had gone to a hotel room by themselves and had more "respectable" sex, she still would have had to deal with the same consequences. I have known white men who didn't want to date white women who have had sex with black men. So even in that scenario there was still the possibility of a rape accusation. In the second video I posted, the man (he looks Indian) that was accused of rape was invited by the phony rape victim to her apartment. Still not biblically "moral", but far more socially acceptable these days than drunk group sex in a bathroom. You would be hard pressed to find a man today moral enough to turn down an attractive woman inviting him to her appartment, especially after he had a few drinks. (Again, don't drink.) It is no longer socially acceptable to say to a woman who is a rape victim in those circumstances "Well you had not business going to his apartment in the first place. What did you think was going to happen?"
    26 replies | 689 view(s)
More Activity

2 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Man, I find myself agreeing & loving every post of yours that I read. You've impressed me.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
About CaptUSA

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
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
Campaign Workers:
Phone Bank Worker


"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
02-28-2012 04:25 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 11:49 PM
Join Date

8 Friends

  1. acptulsa acptulsa is offline


  2. Cap Cap is offline


  3. Ender Ender is offline


  4. erowe1 erowe1 is offline


  5. jmdrake jmdrake is online now


  6. osan osan is offline


  7. r3volution r3volution is offline


  8. tfurrh tfurrh is offline


Showing Friends 1 to 8 of 8
View CaptUSA's Blog

Recent Entries

My personal story (pt2)

by CaptUSA on 02-24-2016 at 09:57 AM
Among my many interests was electricity and I decided that I wanted to change how the industry operates. Understanding the free market as I did, I was pissed that the coolest discovery in the history of mankind was being regulated to death by the government. I wanted to change that.

I found a job as a part-time temporary meter reader. My girlfriend went ballistic that I was quitting a salaried job for a part-time temp job, but I had complete confidence in what I was doing. Meter

Read More

Updated 02-26-2016 at 07:57 AM by CaptUSA


My personal story (pt 1)

by CaptUSA on 02-24-2016 at 09:55 AM
I’ve never used this blog feature before, but since people have wondered (and asked) about my personal story, I figured it was best to do it in here rather than the forums.

It may come across as anecdotal, but I assure you that this same type free market story is working itself out all over the country and the globe. Even in the face or increasing government interference.

I was born in Western PA the third of four boys. When I was still a baby, the second child died

Read More

Updated 02-26-2016 at 07:51 AM by CaptUSA











  • 04:49 PM - Hidden






  • 07:55 PM - Hidden
  • 06:54 PM - Hidden





  • 12:27 PM - Hidden


Page 1 of 191 1231151101 ... LastLast






  • 02:39 PM - Hidden

Page 1 of 191 1231151101 ... LastLast