Energy Abundance Is Liberating Humanity From Grueling Labor
Robert Zubrin’s The Case for Nukes highlights the connection between energy and freedom.

Refreshingly pragmatic and nonpartisan, The Case for Nukes: How We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future (Polaris Books, 2023) by Robert Zubrin offers a sweeping history of energy technology advances. It also provides a taxonomy of the enemies of nuclear power, including Malthusians and "degrowth" advocates who would, ironically, limit the world's only scalable clean energy technology in the name of protecting the environment. The book launches a compelling and detailed defense of one of humanity's most promising yet misunderstood sources of energy. Policy makers across the political spectrum would be wise to heed Zubrin's call to reform and liberalize what he calls the "regulatory whipsawing and strangulation of the nuclear industry."
Zubrin pulls no punches, refusing to play games of political tribalism (i.e., opining that climate change "has become politicized to the point where opposing parties have chosen to either deny it or grossly exaggerate it"). While he presents nuclear energy's potential to lower emissions as a huge positive, he also notes, "The existential threat facing humanity is not climate change. It is the ideologies of despair."
Specifically, when people see the world as a zero-sum battle over scarce energy and limited resources, such desperation can curtail freedoms and even produce unthinkable atrocities. As Zubrin writes, "If the belief persists that there is only so much to go around, then the haves and the want-to-haves are going to have to duke it out, the only question being when." He frames producing ample energy as not only an economic but also a moral imperative.
Although the book's main point may be to promote nuclear power as a solution to some of society's problems, Zubrin's most gripping insight lies not in the specifics of its case for nuclear energy but in its broader dual thesis about the relationship between energy abundance (regardless of the energy's source) and freedom. He writes that energy technology "is the foundation for freedom." He posits both that free societies are better able to produce energy and that access to more energy liberates mankind.
Zubrin tells of how, as civilization has become increasingly energy-intensive, our employment of energy has liberated humanity—particularly women—from grinding labor. "Powered mills had the same significance for women of the Twelfth Century as washing machines did for those of the Twentieth," Zubrin claims. He quotes the ancient Greek poet Antipater of Thessalonica, who praised the water wheel's reduction of women's work hours with these words:
Hold back your hand from the mills, you grinding girls. Even if the cockcrow heralds the dawn, sleep on. For Demeter [the goddess of harvest and agriculture] has imposed the labors of your hands on the [water] nymphs, who leaping down upon the topmost part of the wheel, rotate its axle; with encircling cogs, it turns the hollow weight of the Nisyrian millstones. If we learn to feast toil-free on the fruits of the earth, we taste again the golden age.
The water wheel saving women from waking at sunrise for the mind-numbing task of grinding grain to make bread is just one more example of how technological advances throughout history have arguably benefited women even more than men.
Harnessing energy and mechanizing labor has unshackled countless individuals from exhausting toil—a liberating process that is ongoing in many countries as more households gain access to electricity and labor-saving devices such as laundry machines. Given how many tasks now delegated to electric machines traditionally fell to women, perhaps it is unsurprising that many prominent advocates of an energy-abundant future fueled by nuclear power are women, or as Zubrin alliteratively puts it, a "fine friendly force of fierce feminine fission freedom fighters."
Of course, as Zubrin would likely agree, energy access alone does not create freedom, even if it may help to counter the scarcity mindset that is so often freedom's enemy. One need only look to the Gulf petrostates featuring both massive oil fields and authoritarian political systems to find proof that energy abundance is insufficient to spread liberalism or gender equality.
Oil-rich Saudi Arabia did not even issue driver's licenses to its female citizens until five years ago. It is clear that freedom leads to energy abundance. It is more doubtful that energy abundance necessarily leads to freedom broadly understood—although it at least defuses scarcity-based rationales for limiting human liberty. (Sadly, authoritarians have invented many other justifications for restricting freedom.)
While energy abundance and freedom may be somewhat mutually reinforcing, if humanity were to pick only one, the choice seems clear: institutions and policies of freedom. History shows that free people in lands devoid of natural resources can innovate their way to high living standards. (As Zubrin points out, "It is human ingenuity that turns natural raw materials into resources.")
Consider Hong Kong's whirlwind free market transformation from a barren island into a gleaming metropolis in the 1950s and the 1960s. Freedom is the wellspring of prosperity and innovation, and the energy needed to power modernity. As Zubrin notes, when it comes to environmental challenges, once again, "Freedom is not the problem. Freedom is the solution. Prosperity is not the problem. Prosperity is the solution."
Zubrin also writes that "human progress must and will inevitably entail continued exponential growth of human power generation." Whether humanity generates that power with nuclear reactors or finds an even better solution, the relationship between many aspects of freedom and energy is worth pondering.
Zubrin's book shows the urgency of unleashing energy abundance. He argues convincingly that a future of bountiful energy could help preserve the liberty that scarcity often imperils. Embracing freedom is the surest way to power the future.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Energy Abundance Is Liberating Humanity From Grueling Labor"
So is this why the democrats are waging, and winning, a war on energy?
I don't know why. Even if we entirely switched to nuclear, 2/3 of the world's otherwise arable land mass would still be trapped under the snow and ice of Siberia and Canada.
Plenty of grueling labor to be had farming it with electric tractors that completely lose power every couple hours.
Seriously, in 1,000 yrs. people living on Mars will be sitting around drinking bottled glacier water wondering what we morons were thinking. An AI will say "Electric vehicles are the future!" and they'll all have a good laugh.
"2/3 of the world’s otherwise arable land mass would still be trapped under the snow and ice of Siberia and Canada... farming it with electric tractors that completely lose power every couple hours."
Canada is currently farmable as far north as Peace River Country. Crops raised there include wheat, canola, oats, peas, and barley, and there's plenty of cattle ranching too. It's nice and warm in the summer (70-100) but in January and February temperatures can drop as low as -78F, and the ground is pretty much frozen for 5 months of the year.
Electric vehicles in winter up there wouldn't work. It's not only that the batteries would barely hold a charge, the heater draw would quintuple.
Despite that, the world's most retarded dictator wants it to go all electric... oh, but no nuclear power.
They can get their power from solar utilizing the two seconds of winter daylight, or windmills with blades encased in ice.
Sure, it may be *possible* to farm it now, but during the Eemian Interglacial (the one before the current, Holocene Interglacial) there were hardwood trees that grew as far north as 65', and pines to 71'. The earth would be a lot more fruitful if we turned the thermostat up.
A retreat into a glaciation would be a *lot* worse for humanity as a whole, even if the sea level went back down 100m.
Correct.
Global warming would be good for life.
I am making over $30k a month working part time. I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use this Following
Website........ http://Www.Smartjob1.com
If only there were some element we could release into the atmosphere that would create a greenhouse gas we might have a warmer planet. And if that process also created abundant energy it would be a win/win for humanity. If only.
I get paid between $145 and $395 an hour online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining it I easily made $23,000 with no online skills. Just try it on the companion page.
.
.
.
For Details—————————————➤ https://Www.Coins71.Com
Mmm if the permafrost thaws it's going to release A LOT more CO2. That might actually be bad.
The concern is sequestered methane rather than CO2 and it's mostly in Siberia. Most of the Canadian Arctic was scraped free of potentially methane rich soil down to the bedrock, by the glaciers during the last ice age, so the concern was overestimated.
The earth would be a lot more fruitful if we turned the thermostat up.
And there's plenty of room left on the dial that we aren't actually turning very hard or very fast.
Yes. To Neo-luddites and evangelical Greens, people should live minimalist lives on collective farms. Except, of course, for Party elites.
Inner Party and Outer Party have very different existences.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link----------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Control. As usual.
Remove liberating resources to uncontrolled populations. See the auto wifi connected thermostats the state can use to stop energy usage. It is all control.
Control resources, control the people. Make them dependent on government regulation.
Same thing happening with travel.
Yep. The Democrats who, like all politicians don't think past the next election, are engaging in a worldwide conspiracy to rid the world of cheap energy. It must be true because a couple conspiracy theories were true which means they're all true.
Poor Sarcasmic.
Despite government announcement after government announcement saying exactly that... Despite government ministries in Europe actually called Ministry for Agenda 2030... Despite the UN having multiple websites dedicated to exactly that which he can visit any time... Despite videos on the WEF website itself featuring political leaders and billionaires like Gates saying exactly that... our little retard has decided it's all a c0nsPirCY thEorY.
Sarc can't wrap his brain around the fact that some of the people he derides were right.
The difference between us is that I am capable of changing my mind when new evidence is presented.
What I haven’t figured out is the outright hatred directed at people who do change their minds. Especially when that means agreeing with those same hate-filled people. I’d think they should be glad that others are coming around to their point of view. Instead they just hate them even more.
That's because there was no remorse, regret or repentance for the changing of their views.
It was a full 180 without missing a beat, horrifically shallow and done for the purpose of keeping up with the narrative.
As Overt has said before, argue morals, not science.
That’s because there was no remorse, regret or repentance for the changing of their views.
Boo fucking hoo you entitled fuck. Want sympathy? It’s in the dictionary between shit and syphilis.
Seriously. “I hate you because you didn’t apologize for being wrong! Instead you changed your mind and went about your business! What about meeeeee?”
Thanks for the explanation. It makes total sense.
You’re emotional twats, just like the leftists you hate.
I do not give a shit if people do change their views, I despise those who pretend themselves our betters without humility.
They deserve hate.
Really. Then everyone on your team deserves hate, because y’all treat humility as a weakness.
And you'd be wrong again, because you don't actually know what my team is. You just assume that I must be Team R because I'm against you.
You're definitely not on team self-reflection, team look-at-the-facts, or team judge-arguments-by-merit-not-people.
Thank you for explaining the hatred towards people who change their minds. You hate them, period. Doesn't matter what they say or do, you're going to hate them anyway. It's personal. Makes total sense.
I know that reading is hard, but I have specifically said that I only hate those who change their minds with no reflection.
All the Branch Covidians now demand amnesty, and it's only right that should be denied.
you think changing your mind to avoid personal culpability for the effects of your previous stated position is humility??
strikes me more as cowardice.
If you want to claim humility - claim responsibility for your part in the disasters your previous position entailed [on whichever subject]
Sarc isn't just pretending he changed his views. He is calling those who saw the information and recognized it as being wrong and conspiracy theorist while he was wrong. He actually thinks his side is morally superior despite his refusal to admit he was wrong. Instead others who were right were the ones actually who were wrong.
It is amazing to watch.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —————➤ salarypay.com</a
I'm speechless. It's fucking politics, and it's a win if you can get someone to change their views and vote for the same things you want.
Then you can go on with your life, enjoying your freedom. Work, raise your family, go to baseball games, whatever...
Instead, hardcore partisans want contrition. They want people to pay!!!
The problem sea lion is you and sarc continue to insist you were never wrong despite giving evidence. You continue to attack those who provided evidence.
What you are doing is running defense for the next time government overstep.
Only admitting things after they happen allows government to continue doing the things that were wrong.
Instead of taking the lesson of not trusting or falling for their lies you rely on allowing them to lie to you, defend it, and only acknowledge it after the damage is done.
On top of that you both continue to attack those who were right initially as partisan and conspiracy theorists to tell people not to listen to those who were right.
Youre the worst type of people.
Because it's not about ideas. It's about narratives.
Ideas can be debated and discussed rationally, with evidence presented on all viewpoints of an idea. Narratives, however, are a type of ideology that requires faith to adopt.
When it comes to nuclear energy, the merits and demerits of nuclear energy can be debated using facts and statistics and reason. But the *narrative* must be adopted on faith. And from the pro-nuclear side, the *narrative* is something like "nuclear energy is an unqualified good and those opposed to it are misanthropes who want humanity to suffer from a scarcity of energy".
So if a former anti-nuke activist "wakes up" and says he/she now supports nuclear energy, based on the facts and science behind it, that's not enough to satisfy the *narrative*. That person must confess the Tenets of the Narrative in order to be fully adopted into the tribe. That person must say "Yes, I formerly opposed nuclear energy because I was an evil person who wanted humanity to suffer. I repent my formerly evil ways and beg for forgiveness and contrition upon the Altar of the Narrative."
Self awareness is absent from you isnt it jeff.
Talk about projection. Lol.
People here provide links to evidence.
You talk about things like bears in trunks.
Oh look, I see that Jesse, the master of right-wing narratives, decided to post something in reply. Not gonna bother reading it, because it is a waste of time as Jesse adds no value to these conversations other than to give us all what the daily Team Red talking points will be.
Here are some convenient right-wing narratives that require faith:
“All of the post-COVID election law changes means that elections where Democrats win are now suspect.” (ignore the ones where Republicans win)
“Biden is a corrupt politician that Hunter’s emails conclusively prove to be true.” (ignore that the emails were merely talking ABOUT Biden, and may or may not be true)
“Holding Trump accountable for crimes he may have committed is a weaponization of the justice system against Republicans.” (ignore all the Democrats prosecuted for crimes)
“The J6 prisoners are political prisoners being held in unspeakable conditions for purely political reasons.” (ignore that all of the DC system prisoners, whether or not connected to J6, were treated essentially the same, all else equal)
Let’s imagine what R Mac’s response is:
LYING JEFFY IS A LYING LIAR AND I AM TOTALLY NOT A REPUBLICAN EVEN THOUGH I SUPPORT REPUBLICANS AND REFLEXIVELY DEFEND REPUBLICANS AND PUSH REPUBLICAN NARRATIVES AND SUPPORT THE SAME THINGS THAT REPUBLICANS SUPPORT
I see jeff is only interested in pushing false narratives and assumptions.
Again... self awareness jeff. Lol.
Is this Jeff's "honest argumentation"?
Bookmarked.
I've said it to you before, but politics is not, and has never been, a noble pursuit. In order for any policy to work, someone's will must be imposed on someone else. By doing just such an act, it forfeits all rights of nobility.
Even if true, it's a copout. One can discuss ideas without imposing anyone's will onto anyone else.
I get the strong feeling that the reason why you don't accept people changing their minds on an issue is because what you really want is contrition and retribution.
“The J6 prisoners are political prisoners being held in unspeakable conditions for purely political reasons.” (ignore that all of the DC system prisoners, whether or not connected to J6, were treated essentially the same, all else equal)
So, do you deny that they are being held for political reasons, or that their conditions are terrible? Both?
I would add that many were held without charge or trial, denied access to exculpatory evidence, etc. It's been a complete miscarriage of justice top to bottom.
Do you think that the 'protesters' who stormed the capitol during the Kavanaugh hearings should have been arrested and confined to solitary in the DC jail system? Should the BLM rioters have faced a firing squad or something?
Cite please of a January 6th protestor being held without charge.
Jeff. You've been given this many times. You've commented on it handwaiving it away multiple times.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/14/feds-admit-breaking-law-with-delay-in-case-against-alleged-jan-6-rioter-00017003
My complaint here, is that the Jan. 6 prisoners think that they are being singled out for especially harsh treatment based on their crimes, when in reality, it is emblematic of how awful the entire system is.
It’s a shame you’re not permanently speechless. That would be good for this country.
More importantly he was wrong. And those who showed him he was wrong were right.
Sarc has this weird tic where he claims he is intelligent but always seems to be ignorant about everything. So when people educate him he gets furious.
Sarc's received a masters in Opinions from the University of CNN.
He seems to get them from neocons like the Lincoln Project. Defend the left, attack all conservatives, support Ukraine involvement, push leftist narratives, both sides every negative dem story. Does it all.
The Democrats who, like all politicians don’t think past the next election
Banning Internal Combustion Engines by 2035, and telling you they're the only party that can *checks rhetoric* fix the Weather 200 years out aren't thinking past the next election?
https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1647602135570305026?t=ze5Y3mU-8bx-cleOjwh1LA&s=19
Kerry announced that it's too late for Americans to turn back.
Kerry said that money will not be invested in new coal-fired power plants in the U.S., because “there’s no such thing as clean coal."
"The marketplace is not supporting that," he said. "Investors are not supporting that.”
[Link]
No, that’s not an example of thinking past the next election. They may be “narrativing” past the next election as a tactic to winning the next election, but you can’t really call that thinking. People who do know how to think longer-term know that the further out their thinking goes, the less likely it is to be accurate. Also people who actually think about climate change know that climate models are all linear and that climate is a chaotic system and that you can’t use linear models to predict chaotic systems beyond about ten iterations, whether they are willing to risk their government funding by admitting that or not. If the Democrats who are banning internal combustion cars at some future point beyond the next election actually banned them now, they know that they would lose the next election but that kicking the can down the street so that the catastrophic consequences of their policy actions will only affect future politicians and voters.
Not sure why you felt the need to erect that strawman, but seeing as how Democrats control the energy policy of the US, they have absolutely been waging war on our energy independence.
It just so happens that a lot of other countries are all controlled by brain dead Gaia worshippers doing their level best to turn their populations into subsistence shit farmers at the same time. No conspiracy required.
Power is the rate at which Work can be done.
Political power is the rate at which folks can be killed. The Kleptocracy knows what it's after.
No conspiracy, it's all in the open. And they've been working on it for a long time. Now maybe their intentions are good, or they don't know what they are doing. But it sure seems like there are a lot of people set on getting rid of cheap, reliable energy sources.
"So is this why the democrats are waging, and winning, a war on energy?"
So you won't have to. The problem isn't energy abundance or its lack. The problem is uneven distribution. US per capita energy consumption is equal to about 7000 kgs of oil per year. In Bangladesh, it's just over 200.
Is you argument to restrict energy from some or is it to increase energy of others? It seems the former.
"Is you argument to restrict energy from some or is it to increase energy of others? It seems the former."
It's not my argument you have to worry about. It's the arguments from those who come from countries with less per capita energy consumption than equal to 7000 kilos of oil. Which is most of the world's population. For example, there are about 300 million people in America, and about the same number of cars, trucks, motorcycles etc. Roughly one for each of us. With the world's population of 8 billion striving to attain the same status, I think somethings gotta give.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —————➤ salarypay.com</a
What are the relative rates in the US and Bangladesh of people dying from cooking over dung fires in the confines of their hut?
True story: I met an ex-Royal Marine who did charitable works around the world. De-mining in Sierra Leone, etc. In Nepal he helped villagers install clean gas cookers precisely to address the issue of respiratory problems associated with the kind of cooking you mention. Some time later he visited the villages and discovered the gas cookers gone. They told him they started coming down with malaria - the mosquitoes apparently appreciated the clean air even more than the hut dwellers.
So? Bangladesh doesn’t produce much. We do. Why don’t you go educate yourself on these matters so you don’t make such moronic observations.
Right now you’re just comment clutter.
"So? Bangladesh doesn’t produce much. "
Sure they do. And what they do produce, they produce using only a fraction of the energy Americans need to use to do the same thing. Producing a garment, for example. It's far more expensive and energy intensive in the US.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
"So is this why the democrats are waging, and winning, a war on energy?"
As a sacrifice, to show their commitment to their environmentalist religion. Much like sinners seeking redemption will afflict themselves as penance, Democrats seek to afflict Americans with hardships to punish us for our sinful use of fossil fuels.
Nuclear doesn’t cause hardships or deprivation, so Democrats are against nuclear.
Democrats view fossil fuels as sinful, which is why they are trying to ban them.
—-
Remember during COVID, Democrats fought for the policies that caused the most hardship to be left in place as long as possible, even though they didn’t prevent people from getting COVID.
Democrats' policy choices are consistent.
I don’t understand why we allow the democrat party to exist. It isn’t worth the trouble. We should get rid of it. Today isn’t too soon.
I really like that tag-line 'democrats war on energy'
Everyone should be using it and make it a thing (if it isnt already)
Being a former senior engineer in a very large power company and having earned a Master of Science in his field, I cringe when those not in THIS field embarrass themselves in public with their posts.
https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1647594676332134402?t=MKcSwBGNkcYAuzr1dsx1Uw&s=19
“It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.”
[Link]
Regardless of Zubrin’s general thesis connecting energy and liberty, nuclear power is evidently superior to traditional sources like coal, being cleaner, safer, and counter-intuitively releasing less radioactivity than coal Any rational energy policy going forward would be a hybrid of nuclear and renewables – economics and location driving the choice of source.
As far as energy being liberating, it’s a “yes, but…” Lenin famously stated. “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.” (which was the inspiration for the opera, “the Electrification of the Soviet Union”) and went on to say, “the organisation of industry on the basis of modern, advanced technology, on electrification which will provide a link between town and country, will put an end to the division between town and country, will make it possible to raise the level of culture in the countryside and to overcome, even in the most remote corners of land, backwardness, ignorance, poverty, disease, and barbarism”. But just because Lenin said it doesn’t make it wrong.*
I note, too, that Hong Kong may have been economically free from the late 50s but was scarcely politically free until a very few years before the hand-over to China. In fact, HK is an object lesson in how political and economic freedom do not go hand in hand.
*There will of course always be morons who think that merely quoting Lenin means one agrees with him in general.
Except when Lenin said "the organisation of industry" he meant top/down central planning and he was dead wrong in that. And the "bang for the buck" (input/output efficiency) we get from fossil fuels blows away anything solar and wind can do.
That is indeed where he was wrong, but his point about the importance of energy remains.
Generative efficiency is not the only metric that matters. There are a number of other considerations that may in practice be more significant.
"Any rational energy policy going forward would be a hybrid of nuclear and renewables – economics and location driving the choice of source."
Kenya is an interesting case. It has Africa's most ambitious geo thermal sources; currently with almost a gigawatt of capacity, and projected to supply over half of electricity by 2030. Over 90% of Kenya's electricity comes from renewable sources. Kenya is set to become Africa's second nuclear producer after South Africa, with Chinese help. Their program is projected for completion in the mid 2030s and has faced the years of delays familiar to the nuclear industry all over the globe. Uganda also has a nuclear program underway, also with Chinese and Russian help. The Ugandans plan on generating electricity in 2031, but with the all but inevitable delays, who knows?
Taibbi questions why government leaks such as vindman against Trump to spur impeachment are not enforced the same as leaks that destroy government lies and narratives.
https://www.racket.news/p/the-crackdown-cometh
And meanwhile Clarence Thomas's disclosures get weirder:
Clarence Thomas has for years claimed income from a defunct real estate firm
Lol. Shrike continues to push the leftist narrative of the day.
Shrike thinks justices can’t have friends. The person the left is attacking has never had business in front of the Supreme Court, doesn’t matter to shrike though. Character assassination of all black conservatives.
Good work buddy.
Wapo is just icing on the cake. Talk about the Biden family business next time shrike. Lol.
Shrike proves democrats are intrinsically racist. He also proves that many of them are pedophiles too.
Jesse: "Taibbi questions why government leaks such as vindman"
British Shrike: "meanwhile Clarence Thomas"
Desperate but amusing redirection attempt. "No, look over there!"
Anyway, I'll bite.
Let's look at the story in a paper that isn't a Democratic Party organ:
SCOTUS Justice has been claiming up to $100K-a-year income from real estate firm managed by wife Ginni's sister
"Thomas, on his financial disclosure forms, reported rental income totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a firm called Ginger, Ltd., Partnership...
But that Nebraska-based real estate firm, which was started in the 1980s, hasn't existed since 2006...
After it closed, a new firm Ginger Holdings, LLC, which is managed by Ginni Thomas sister, took over the holdings.
Ginger Holdings, LLC, is registered to a home in Lincoln, Nebraska, and employees two people. According to its filings, it works in the financial services industry.
But Thomas has reported income from the defunct company - between $50,000 and $100,000 annually in recent years - with no mention of the new firm.
It could be a simple paperwork error."
So they changed the company from an LLC to an Ltd 17 years ago and his sister-in-law assumed control of the company.
And because Thomas's accountant still called it Ginger Ltd instead of Ginger Holdings LLC in the filings, this is somehow criminal.
Are these clowns really that fucking desperate? What possible reason could there be for this level of petty harrassment and stupidity?
"Some have even called on the 74-year-old Thomas to resign. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have called for his impeachment."
Oh! There it is.
Aren't you even a little fucking embarrassed?
AOC should know not to throw stones in glass houses.
Also, he's claiming the income either way or he's paying out on income he didn't earn.
Remember when RBG fell asleep after a glass of wine and everybody said she should resign? Oh wait, they specifically fucked it up by saying she *shouldn't* resign.
If Thomas were a democrat justice he could receive million dollar checks from the ChiComs and there would be no problem. But since he’s independent of the democrat machine, any slight inconstancy is the scandal of the century.
The walls are closing in.
https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1647763370748317696?t=3HMQGk8KGLkCZ_d-UY3q_w&s=19
This is how the entire left approaches the law:
[Pic]
Holy Fuck! THAT is supposed to be a scandal? Ginger Holdings LLC instead of Ginger Ltd?
Is there any indication he or his accountant even knew his wife’s family had changed the name?
YOUGOTHIMNOW!!
Somehow the NYT and Wapo, 2 brands that reported some anonymous leaker (read: fed) regarding Trump almost daily, who elevated every whistleblower to hero status (again, when it concerned Trump), are now absolutely up in arms that someone would leak information. Oh, but this doesn't give us any dirt on Trump, and makes Ukraine look bad...uh oh...throw him in jail!
Seriously, these people are all just competing to be the official govt sanctioned hall monitor that gets to walk the wrong thinkers to the gulag. No principles whatsoever. Leaks are great, and help speak truth to power, and help us maintain democracy!...unless they dont help us get dirt on R's, then throw the traitor in jail
This leak shows bidens administration as lying about Ukraine. That isn't allowed.
You mean the leaks aren't allowed, right? Biden lying is allowed and welcomed.
"Policy makers across the political spectrum would be wise to heed Zubrin's call to reform and liberalize what he calls the "regulatory whipsawing and strangulation of the nuclear industry."
That's a problem for nuclear. If the technology has to roll back regulations to make it economically feasible, that's not good. Allowing builders to use sea sand instead of river sand, for example, makes economic sense, is not wise. Cutting corners is always a temptation, but again, unwise, especially with nuclear where the stakes are high.
Except that the "whipsawing" is not making it economically infeasible, it's the regulatory burden itself - taking decades to get the permits from the regulators in the first place and then losing anyway in court at the hands of the NIMBYs. More importantly, the statement that nuclear fission is "cleaner" than the alternatives doesn't seem to be taking into account the consequences of raw material mining, refining and waste disposal.
"taking decades to get the permits from the regulators in the first place and then losing anyway in court at the hands of the NIMBYs."
That's freedom for you. Look to North Korea and China if you want a nuclear program without the burdens of public scrutiny and participation. Even there though, I'm sure there are regulations designed to prevent corner cutting in construction.
Freedom is allowing people to build whatever they want on their own land as long as they don't trespass or litter on anyone else's land.
Freedom is not allowing neighbours to restrict what property owners can do.
I don't think anyone anywhere is free to substitute sea sand for river sand in the nuclear reactors they construct. You're still free to try though.
"Freedom"
"Regulatory burden"
One these things is not like the other....
“Decades” and “public scrutiny and participation” – one of these things is not like the other. If the comment and regulatory approval process took less than a year, it’s probably perfunctory. If the public comment and approval process takes decades and ends up being denied in court for non-legal reasons, even after decades of actual experience with nuclear power plants all over the developed world, then it’s not legitimate.
" If the comment and regulatory approval process took less than a year, it’s probably perfunctory"
We should let the bankers and financiers set the timetable. After all, they are the experts and know what's best for us. They are the best ones to determine how much public scrutiny and participation is legitimate and where to draw the line.
Yes, very regulation is absolutely necessary. Democrats never ever put regulations in place because they’re corrupt cunts, or because one of their special interest masters ordered them to obstruct something.
Seymore Hersh delves into Zelensky and his allies using US money to make themselves rich. This includes buying diesel from Russia at discounted rates but marking books as bought from more expensive markets while pocketing the difference.
https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/trading-with-the-enemy
The New York Times
@nytimes
·
Follow
Nearly a third of all shoplifting arrests in New York City last year involved just 327 people, the police said. Collectively, they were arrested and rearrested more than 6,000 times.
Maybe they should actually, 'y'know, put those people in jail and *keep* them there.
Racist!
Especially if they're arrested more than once a month. That's 18.3 arrests per person in just one year, average.
Maximum sentence for petit larceny in NY is 364 days. So this pretty much means that there are hundreds of people in NY who are getting arrested 17 times in one year for the same thing and the judge still won't give them the maximum, or even half the maximum.
Or else it means that they're getting arrested but they're not getting convicted? That would be an entirely different problem; either the police are constantly arresting innocent people, or we can't get convictions of obviously guilty repeat offenders.
What makes you think they ever see a judge?
Getting arrested is just the first step to getting released without charges.
Welcome to NYC.
NYC would be freer under martial law.
...and the Germans shut down their last three reactors.
The Greens are too powerful in Germany.
Soros is one of the biggest benefactors of the German energy program and the pressure to end energy from Russia.
https://amybalog.substack.com/p/george-soros-is-profiting-big-from
Much of the German energy push is from the WEF. Billionaires making profit off of "green energy."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/energy-crisis-germany-europe
But the good little narrative pushers knows to run cover from his favored group.
Soros spends a lot of money pushing the climate energy while staying away from nuclear. Not profitable enough for him.
https://www.thestreet.com/personalities/billionaire-george-soros-issues-a-dire-warning-about-the-world
At least for current nuclear technologies. The profit is in the new forms of nuclear 20 years away after the energy crisis comes to fruition.
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/commonwealth-fusion-secures-big-investment-round
Echoes of Jerry Brown getting activists in California to ban nuclear power, while the Brown clan was heavily invested in Indonesian oil and gas production (and delivered to Cal).
Soros also pays activist groups to fight public land 3nergy exploration as he has his company buy private lands for exploration. Done merely to improve his profits on private energy.
I really hope some country has Soros and his evil kids assassinated.
Further evidence that 'green' isnt the goal. The goal is restricting the overall amount, so the plebs can get rationing and the elites can live like kings.
Same communist shit, as always
Always attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, ignorance or stupidity.
No, you're actually malicious too.
Amd of course he is incompetent, ignorant and stupid too.
"True libertarians defend big, intrusive government." -Sarc
"True libertarians are so self-absorbed and arrogant that they believe everyone who disagrees with them are not just wrong but evil."
Not everyone. But you, yeah.
consequences that can be foreseen aren’t unintended. Especially if your everyday person can foresee them.
consequences that can be foreseen aren’t unintended.
Well then. So Trump DOES bear some responsibility for the Jan. 6 riots, owing to his continual, nonstop bleating about "stolen election" for the prior two months...
And even if your statement should be taken as true, it doesn't necessarily point to evil motives.
What is so wrong with just saying "I disagree with their policies" instead of going all the way to "THEY WANT TO COMMIT EVIL"?
After all, that is how you want right-wingers to be treated, right? For others to politely say "I disagree with your policies", instead of going all the way to "THEY ARE EVIL RACIST ASSHOLES"?
No. You just happen to be evil. Maybe all that grooming shit, plus your stalwart defense of Marxism and Marxist democrats might have something to do with that.
You’re also a lying pile of discarded whale blubber.
Malice and incompetence are not mutually exclusive. It can be both malice AND ignorance and stupidity, and probably IS, both at the same time. By the way, quoting aphorisms instead of disputing facts and logic doesn't make your opinion look stronger.
Mike Parsons' comment that sarcasmic was responding to ...
https://reason.com/2023/04/16/energy-abundance-is-liberating-humanity-from-grueling-labor/?comments=true#comment-10021048
... was full of facts and logic?
Show one comment from Jeff or sarc filled with facts or logic Mikey boy.
All their posts are absent any citations as well.
"Further evidence that ‘green’ isnt the goal. "
I think Green is at least one of Germany's goals. Another being energy independence. Check out, if you will, Germany's reserves of uranium: pathetically small. Check out, again, what happened with Nordstream pipeline and Germany's dependence on Russia gas.
The notion that Germany should abandon her reliance on a non existent energy resource, only to take up with another is ludicrous. Absent an international framework that guarantees global access to energy, Germany has to find a way to self sufficiency.
It's not only not ludicrous, it's not even bad policy. Check out the reliability of Arab and Russian gas sources, western nuclear fuel sources and the reactor nuclear fuel cycle - "Typically, reactor operators change out about one-third of the reactor core (40 to 90 fuel assemblies) every 12 to 24 months" - and ask yourself which source is more susceptible to sudden changes in international relations? It seems to me that Germany can rely on Russian gas sources for most energy needs while maintaining their nuclear power system for international relations gas emergencies.
"t seems to me that Germany can rely on Russian gas sources for most energy needs "
Not if someone keeps blowing up their pipelines. The world has relied on the Middle East since the mid 20th century. The ME has been in constant turmoil and conflict during this time. Germany switches to Russian sources and now they step up and erupt in conflict. The same shit will doubtless happen when we get around to rely on uranium.
I don't see why elites care how much everyone else has. Surely they would be more focused on giving themselves more rather than ensuring everyone else has less?
They aren't actually 'elite' as in, measurably better, they are 'elitists' because they think they actually are better, and deserve the money, power and positions they have granted themselves.
Econazis are loyal to their NSDAP forbears when it comes to consistency in sacrifice: "The leaders of the party pledge that they will relentlessly seek the implementation of these points, if necessary at the cost of their lives." Hitler, 1920. Reason contributor Petr Beckmann was 13 when national socialists goosestepped into Czechoslovakia.
Part of the reason why energy abundance does not automatically result in increased freedom is that oft-misunderstood difference between "freedom from" and "freedom to." Freedom from toil, freedom from hunger and freedom from want, for example, are fundamentally different from Freedom to vote, freedom to drive and freedom to own property.
Started during FDR and his four freedoms, including freedom from want.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
Why he is was such a terrible president. Started the entitlement mentality of America.
Note it isnt even about need. But wants. A truly mendacity mentality.
"Started the entitlement mentality of America."
The entitlement mentality of America started six months before FDR became president. That's when the Bonus Army occupied part of Washington demanding early payment of bonuses promised to WWI veterans. Congress eventually caved to the demands, but had to over-ride an FDR veto to do so.
Here is the dems 1932 platform.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1932-democratic-party-platform
FDR pushed the policies way before his 1941 speech. He was using that speech as an end cap to his push for entitlements dummy.
In 1936 he created the civilian conservation corps to satiate the 1933 bonus army payment. He was paying them. They kept asking for more.
Americans were embracing the entitlement mentality before FDR became president. The Bonus Army occupation of Washington took place under the Hoover administration.
It didn’t matter what people asked for. It mattered when government started granting those demands dummy. And more importantly when courts began allowing them to. See again.... FDR.
"It didn’t matter what people asked for."
It did matter. If the Bonus Army hadn't started America's entitlement mentality, the government wouldn't have given them what they demanded. I understand your urge to scapegoat FDR with America's shortcomings. But the entitlement mentality you decry started long before FDR arrived on the scene.
There is no urge there. It is a matter of facts. Sorry your FDR reformation act denied this. I mean FDR bragged about it.
But inanity is your goal here.
" I mean FDR bragged about it. "
Then it must be true. America's entitlement mentality was a done deal the day FDR took office, and not a moment before. QED.
It's not just that your arguments are condescending and pedantic, but they are also often trivial and uninteresting on top of being wrong.
And that's on a good day,
Oh look. Another teacher in Florida caught on camera indoctrinating students into a racist ideology. I am sure DeSantis will be right on this to pass another law banning such outrageous behavior.
https://nbc-2.com/news/local/collier-county/2023/04/14/collier-teacher-under-investigation-for-showing-confederate-history-month-video-to-school/
From Jeff lying about schools not teaching about slavery to Jeff demanding nobody teach about the confederacy. Amazing.
You should destroy the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier while you're at it Jeff.
I am sure Jesse and R Mac are presenting reasoned, rational takes which agree with me that yes, teachers shouldn’t be promoting Confederate narratives in the middle school classroom.
Oh who am I kidding, they are engaging instead in whataboutisms, deflecting on behalf of those pimping for the Civil War's losing side, along the lines of “AT LEAST THEY’RE NOT PEDOPHILE GROOMERS”
What is the narrative here jeff?
Of course your preference is for raping small children, and/or mutilating their genitals.
What's wrong with that?
Not enough illustrations of kids sucking off adults.
I thought we were opposed to teachers indoctrinating kids into a racist ideology.
Explain how what he said was racist ideology, you dishonest piece of shit.
You fucking disgust me so much.
You'll claim that your Neo-Nazi CRT racial ideology is "Just teaching history", and then the second a teacher from an unclean state mentions AN ACTUAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED HISTORY MONTH you'll pretend he was teaching KKK ideology.
The sheer dishonesty, hypocrisy, sophistry of every word you fucking type revolts me.
You're evil. Plain evil.
State rights are a racist ideology?
The Confederate States asserted their states' rights to do what, precisely?
Delaware prides itself on being “The First State” for ratifying the Constitution before any other, but it was among the last to ratify the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, waiting until February 1901, more than 35 years after the end of the Civil War.
Lol. Poor Uncle Joe.
I mean, once it had been made part of the Constitution any further ratifications were pretty much symbolic only. And you wouldn't have expected them to ratify it while the 13th was being passed, seeing as how slavery was still legal there at that time - if they wanted to make it illegal they would have made it illegal.
Secede from the Union. What was the ideology of Northern states and territories that were exempted by Lincoln's "emancipation proclamation"?
So the Confederate states asserted the right to secede from the Union, at that point in time, because they were demanding the right to... do what?
(I know you can fill in the blanks here)
Use the right of succession when states decided to federalize?
Exit a freely entered pact?
Own people and secede from the union. Neither of which is racist.
And indeed, slavery was pretty universal throughout history.
But as always with this subject and US history, it must be race based.
Booker T Washington said it best:
There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.
*American* slavery WAS racist because that is how the slavery was justified. The twisted logic was, black people were inferior, and that is why slavery was the "natural order of things". They would never be the equal of whites, so white people owning them and treating them like pets was the best that black people could hope for. That was the sick logic. In other times and other places, slavery was justified in different ways. In Roman times slavery was justified as "the spoils of war", and so anyone could become a slave at any time depending on how the battle turned out. But that was not American slavery, there was no war between America and Africa. So yes it very much was racist.
chemjeff radical individualist 4 hours ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
I am sure Jesse and R Mac are presenting reasoned, rational takes
Ironic that you have yet to make one of those this morning.
I am but I have asked repeatedly, and not gotten an answer: Why can't a teacher teach Nazi ideology in the classroom, and if they can't, what's the mechanism to stop them?
So I'm merely going with the current progressive wave.
And for the record, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that whatever the teacher is teaching IS racist ideology.
So are YOU the one that's reversing his position on this idea?
Okay, I will put on my serious hat now.
I am fine with a teacher teaching Nazi ideology in the classroom - at an age-appropriate level, and in proper context. So go ahead and talk about all the great things Hitler did for Germany. But also mention the whole genocide thing. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
Likewise, if a teacher is going to talk about the Confederacy in the classroom, be sure to mention the whole slavery part. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.
I am in favor of giving kids a complete, well-rounded classical liberal education with plenty of critical thinking.
From the looks of it, what happened at this Florida school was that this teacher played this video, broadcast for the whole school, that did NOT put the Confederacy into proper context, didn't mention slavery it appears, but did call the Civil War "The War To Prevent Southern Independence". That is inappropriate IMO.
Serious now? So everything else was hypocrisy and childish antics?
Why are you the one who decides the proper context? You’ve argued it is the domain of teachers and districts.
Odd.
, didn’t mention slavery it appears
Cite?
"We are steadily building a new race..." - Republican Herbert Hoover inaugural speech, 04MAR1929. Eugenic racial collectivism, Comstock laws and Prohibition of all things enjoyable were as popular Stateside as Hitler was in Germany.
“If you didn’t know, April is an officially celebrated month here in the State of Florida named Confederate History Month,” the teacher said in the video...
The State of Florida does recognize April as Confederate History Month."
SOOOOOO RACIST, JEFF! HE MENTIONED AN ACTUAL THING. YOU WIN AGAIN!!!
It's clown world sophistry all the time with Fat Jeffy.
https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1647641842337341440?t=tJrNcHagg5JoyOmTL2ErmQ&s=19
It's noted that red states tend to have higher homicide rates relative to blue states.
At the county level, the trend reverses: blue counties tend to have higher homicide rates relative to red counties.
[Link]
Confirmed. Link not allowed. They seem to be doing more and more of this here.
Sure it is a conspiracy theory to Mike, jeff, and sarc.
Daughter is 12, btw
https://twitter.com/bhennrich/status/1646752765207810048?t=CCWa6LU-Hx_ZZel2haJB-Q&s=19
Amber & I have compiled a true emergency kit for Briana & her friends. Plan-B, condoms, pregnancy tests. Just found out that I can add Narcan for free to that kit. I hope we never need to use it. But it will be there. You can see if you are eligible
Briana must be quite the little slut.
Absolutely creepy. Freaks like this are the ones who show their kids porn and then want to discuss it. Their daughter is probably so grossed out and embarrassed by them right now.
Liberal parent: I got my kid and emergancy preganacy and OD kit beacuse I am a good parent.
Sane parent: If you were a good parent your kid wouldn't need one.
Is Bud Light trolling conservatives?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/conservative-boycott-could-create-a-backlash-to-the-bud-light-backlash-f25093cb
Moral of the story: in two of the more recent demands for a conservative boycott - Nike and Goya - the "buycott" effect, or the backlash to the backlash, proved to be a stronger economic factor.
If the same trend proves to be true for Bud Light, then all of the publicity surrounding the boycotts will only inspire MORE people to buy Bud Light so as to take a position opposing the boycotts.
However, at least in the case of Goya, the economic benefit from the "buycott" was very transitory. It only lasted about 5 weeks then things were back to normal.
So maybe Bud Light is just looking for a momentary bump in sales.
Keep the hopes up Jeff. 5 billion in market cap loss. Estimated 5 to 10 million lost in sales. All so you can watch an actor dress up in woman face and pretend to get periods.
What are your views on BDS again?
It's interesting how everyone is talking about the Bud LIght debacle, and few people are talking about the Nike Debacle. The Nike debacle is fucking jaw-droppingly misogynistic. Imagine a company put out an ad feature a stereo-typed black character, and not one that could be interpreted in any light as being a "positive" stereotype which they might get away with, but a wholly negative stereotype. And the established elites called it "stunning and brave".
Nike has been doing this for a while.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/nike-loses-3-75-billion-150241411.html
What is misogynistic about Colin Kaepernik kneeling?
And Jeff is clueless. As usual. Nike comment was about Mulvaney dumbass. Their prior kaepernick use is a other example.
Holy fucking shit...
*voice of Jules from Pulp Fiction*
Your ass ain't talkin' your way outta this shit.
Boom.
A stereotyped black character, played by a performer in blackface no less.
Right, a beer that doesn't appeal to the progressive set in the first place is suddenly going to be the beer of choice in every tranny bar from New York to San Francisco.
However, at least in the case of Goya, the economic benefit from the “buycott” was very transitory.
"transitory" boycott indeed.
Or maybe, there's a whole bunch of people, who aren't martini-sipping coastal progressive elites, but who also don't want to be lumped in with the conservative bigots, who will buy Bud Light instead of their usual Miller Lite or Coors Light the next time they go to the store.
You're not a whole bunch of people, Jeff. You're not even a minority.
He is the size of a whole bunch of people though.
Ah yes, the Target premium strategy, please let us know how well that will work.
WMT: market cap: 400.25B
TGT: market cap: 74.12B
Maybe we should rethink calling your customers bigots.
What do you think that statistic proves?
Maybe we should rethink calling your customers bigots.
I don't think all Bud Light customers are bigots. But there are some who are, particularly the ones who get outraged when the company chooses to associate itself with a transgender individual.
What do you think that statistic proves?
In case it wasn't obvious to you, Target prides itself on it's brand of clientele (upper classes), and they tend to cost more than Walmart (lower classes). By choosing to be elitist (that means more egalitarian), they pay a market penalty.
One need only look at who shops where to see this in action. The same is true of Busch.
Or maybe, there’s a whole bunch of people, who aren’t martini-sipping coastal progressive elites, but who also don’t want to be lumped in with the conservative bigots, who will buy Bud Light instead of their usual Miller Lite or Coors Light the next time they go to the store.
The wife of a friend of mine, who’s a school nurse just volunteered to run a food booth at a high school sporting even, selling beer and hot dogs. She said her booth sold $28,000 worth of beer that evening. She was completely unaware of the Bud Light Controversy.
She came home and said, “It was weird, we only sold 6 cans of bud out of $28,000 worth of beer sales”. My friend then explained to her why.
The only backlash-to-the-backlash you’d possibly see is an influx of ESG cash: Get broke, go woke.
Sure, I guess. Let's wait 5 weeks and see how things look then.
Because the worst thing in the world is for someone to think you MIGHT be a conservative. *massive fucking eyeroll”
In some quarters, yes. Just like around here, the worst thing in the world is for someone to think one is a liberal.
Bump in sales? All the precious types who drink cosmos and hyper-boutique craft beers will switch to Bud Light?
Maybe, just maybe, there are more than two types of people besides "cosmo-drinking coastal elitists" and "outraged right-wingers shooting up cases of Bud Light in protest".
Yes. There are fat ass pedophile leftists who go to libertarian sites pretending to be libertarian while pushing leftist narratives as well. Know any?
Will the DeSantis fanbois come out in support of this one?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-allow-death-penalty-with-8-4-jury-vote-instead-unanimously-2023-04-14/
Even if you support the death penalty, I would hope that you would at least agree that the bar for applying the death penalty should be a very high bar.
You realize a unanimous jury found them guilty at this point right? Define high bar.
This is the narrative pushing you mention above. This story is all over leftist sites.
Even more fun for Jeff. California allows unlimited retrial for death sentencing.
California
WHAT HAPPENS IF JURY CANNOT REACH UNANIMOUS SENTENCE State Can Retry Multiple Times
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/life-verdict-or-hung-jury-how-states-treat-non-unanimous-jury-votes-in-capital-sentencing-proceedings
He could be mad about the Florida bill allowing the death penalty for kiddie diddling.
https://twitter.com/FLVoiceNews/status/1646974277390835715
https://hollymathnerd.substack.com/p/perverted-incentives
Good point. He still doesn't know how the court systems work. Just an ignorant dummy.
Jesse's response:
"YOU'RE SO SCARED OF MY HERO DESANTIS THAT YOU CAN'T STOP TALKING ABOUT HIM, THAT MEANS HE IS A LOCK TO WIN IN 2024!!"
(which totally ignores the substance of the issue surrounding the death penalty)
Or maybe, Jesse's response is:
"BUT YOU SUPPORT KILLERS BEING SET FREE BECAUSE YOU'RE A PROGGIE LIBRUL WHO HATES REGULAR MURICANS"
Probably this second one
Wow. Completely wrong. We already knew you were a fucking idiot. We didn't need the proof. Lol.
Wait, you’re having arguments with people you’ve muted?
Holy shit.
He can't be wrong if he just creates strawman arguments.
Oh I"ve had my fair share of arguments with Jesse, R Mac, etc.
Jesse is utterly predictable: nothing but a series of Team Red talking points, whataboutisms, deflecting on behalf of Team Red, stuffing arguments into people's mouths, and puerile insults. So why bother. I can invent Jesse's arguments for him and mine would be at least funnier.
"Jesse is utterly predictable: nothing but a series of Team Red talking points, whataboutisms, deflecting on behalf of Team Red, stuffing arguments into people’s mouths, and puerile insults."
This is practically a word for word description of your modus operandi here.
Either you're an enormous hypocrite, a liar or have Sarcasmic levels of self-awareness.
Personally I think it's the first two.
So predictable every made up comment you've given today has been wrong. Lol.
Jesse is utterly predictable: nothing but a series of Team Red talking points, whataboutisms, deflecting on behalf of Team Red, stuffing arguments into people’s mouths, and puerile insults.
Any reply to him must begin by refuting all the lies said about you in the previous post. Meanwhile Big Mac and the Canadian Cunt are chiming in with their own lies. By the time you're done defending yourself from the onslaught of mendacity, you're too exhausted to make an argument.
Best left on mute. Unless you condone that behavior. Which many here do. They must. Or they'd call him out on his lies. But they never do and they never will because he's on their team. Disgusting, really.
"Best left on mute. Unless you condone that behavior."
What Sarcasmic can't understand (because he's an attention whore) is I don't give a fuck if I'm muted.
I post to refute Jeff, Mike and Sarc. Not to engage in dialogue with them.
Why would I engage with trolls and sophists who have nothing to contribute except for dishonesty and whatever appeared in their ActBlue talking points, other than to mock or refute them for the sake of others?
Whether or not they've muted me is irrelevant.
"Which many here do. They must."
Practically everyone, actually. Aside from the two fifty-centers and their sockpuppets, the comments policeman, the two insane old men and sarcasmic, everyone else here is libertarian.
And sarcasmic can't help but join his remaining leftist uber allies.
Yeah, how much higher of a crime do you need than raping kids?
I mean, come on man.
I don't support the death penalty.
But if I did, I would want it applied only after there was as little doubt as humanly possible that the accused criminal was actually guilty, so as not to give ammunition to the anti-death-penalty crowd when they inevitably claim that innocent people are accidentally murdered by the system.
Which won't change even if jury votes came down to 7:5, so crying about a 2/3 majority is pointless.
Furthermore, all death penalty cases get too many automatic appeals, so this is a red herring.
But it happened in the Parkland case. The jury decided that Cruz was guilty of the crime, but did not deserve the death penalty. They are two separate decisions.
Furthermore, all death penalty cases get too many automatic appeals,
So you want to *increase* the likelihood that an innocent person is wrongly executed, by reducing the number of appeals?
But it happened in the Parkland case. The jury decided that Cruz was guilty of the crime, but did not deserve the death penalty. They are two separate decisions.
Indeed, which is why lowering the punishment phase is a non-story.
So you want to *increase* the likelihood that an innocent person is wrongly executed, by reducing the number of appeals?
If you don't trust the justice system to convict the person accused, it doesn't matter what the punishment is. You've already determined that the trial couldn't be fair. A trial by peers is always a trial based upon trust in the given community. So are you for 86'ing peer trials?
This is absurdly reductionist. Just because some trials are unfair doesn't mean that every trial is.
I think every system created by humans is prone to failure on some level, because humans are themselves fallible. Appeals are one way to try to catch those failures before it is too late.
But hey, go ahead and keep doing what you are doing, you are making my argument for me. Every time you advocate for reducing the number of appeals, I get to claim that the safeguards against executing innocent people are weakened.
This is absurdly reductionist. Just because some trials are unfair doesn’t mean that every trial is.
Not at all. Once you accept that the system is flawed, which you do, then all punishments (and indeed, all crimes) are equally on the table. Why is the death penalty bad when life in prison isn’t? Does it not also destroy an innocent?
And of course, from there you inevitably get to zero prison time.
I think every system created by humans is prone to failure on some level, because humans are themselves fallible. Appeals are one way to try to catch those failures before it is too late.
What’s the minimum acceptable rate of failure? I can give you mine: 10%
Are you seriously arguing that capital punishment should be expanded to include more crimes?
I'm open to it.
I personally have zero issues with child molesters being given it, but more broadly, I have zero problems with communities deciding to organize themselves how they will. In the realm of criminal justice, that means the death penalty is entirely valid.
Jeff advocated capital punishment for trespassing. True Story.
The vote for death sentence comes AFTER a unanimous guilty verdict you ignorant retard.
the accused criminal was actually guilty,
Further proof you are too concerned woth narrative than understanding what you are upset about.
If the person was convicted, especially unanimously, I’m not sure I see the point in quibbling over how harsh (or not harsh) the penalty is and what the bar should be for agreeing to it being administered.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the death penalty being on the table at all.
"Freedom is not the problem. Freedom is the solution. Prosperity is not the problem. Prosperity is the solution."
But freedom and prosperity leads to jealousy and envy. If you've got a Chevy and your neighbor has two Rolls Royces, you'd be happier if both of you had bicycles. Never mind that you would be worse off, as long as your asshole neighbor isn't better off than you, you're happy. It doesn't say anything good about humanity but it's true that we're petty that way and will gladly cut off our nose to spite our face.
Most humans act like retards.
One of the stories often not told is one of the big reasons serfdom died in western Europe was the adoption of better farming techniques and technologies during the medieval period. The deep furrow iron plow allowed the land to be worked faster and more efficiently. Before this invention, every three or four years the land had to be worked by hand, which required a lot of man power (thus a need for a lot of peasants and/or slaves to work the land). The horse collar allowed horses to be utilized which plowed three times more land in the same time it took a team of oxen to work the land, e.g. a horse could plow three acres for every one a team of oxen could plow in the same time. This led to farm consolidation, which created a surplus population which could then be utilized in the burgeoning industrial sectors. Of course plague and the little ice age helped to spur this change and consolidation, due to death from disease (up to 50% of Europe's population) plus famine also knocked off 5-20% periodically. The field rotation also helped to allow more efficient use of the land, one year in legumes, followed by a year of winter grains and a year of spring grains or fallow, which was grazed. Without even realizing it, this system allowed vital nutrients such as nitrogen to be reintroduced into the soil, thus ensuring better yields.
As more people became divorced from subsistence farming, the old feudal contracts became harder to defend. A merchant class and middle class began to exert much greater influence. Leading to Renaissance and Humanism and eventually from this to the ideals of the enlightenment. Pair this with the huge increase in specie as a result of colonialism, largely silver, but also gold, the strict hierarchal caste system of the Medieval period was no longer justified, even as government became more centralized and bureaucratic. Or possibly because governments became more centralized and bureaucratic. It is easier to reform a centralized system than a dispersed system, such as what existed during the early medieval period, where the power of the king was much less impactful on every day life, and chances were even the local lords likely weren't a major player in the local life either (often being absentee lords who relied on local proxies). We often see these (or are told these) systems were evil without redeeming virtues but the fact is they were necessary and produced the ground on which the modern world could come into existence.
Today I was discussing with my minister why did Luther succeed when Wycliffe and Hus fail? Wycliffe was in the 13th century, Hus in the 15th and Luther in the 16th. What occurred during these two centuries that allowed Luther's reforms to succeed while the other two were unsuccessful. Wycliffe and Hus had many of the same problems with the Church that Luther addressed in his 95 thesis, largely the practices of indulgences, papal infallibility and the need for church as an intermediary between Christians and Christ. I mean Luther and Hus even operated within the Holy Roman Empire, and Hus was executed only a couple generations before Luther was born. Hus and Luther were near contemporaries. So what was the essential change that led to the (largely) successful suppression of Hussites, but the largely unsuccessful suppression of Lutherans, and other Protestant movements. And it wasn't a lack of trying. I would argue it was the continuing breakdown of the old caste systems, as the power of the local lord and clergy became less all encompassing, the number of schisms that predates this period, with periods of multiple adversarial papacies, and a growing sense of national identity (e.g. nationalism). People were growing aware that they belonged to something larger than just their village. No longer were you simply Wittenbergers, but now you were Saxons, and eventually Germans. And with this growing awareness, you began to question why you didn't have a say in how the Duke of Saxony ruled. At the same time the Duke of Saxony also was questioning why he didn't have a larger say in how the Empire was ran, and why he was beholden to a far away papacy. And none of this could have come about if people were still practicing subsistence farming, with limited specie. It took abundance, both of food and commodities, but also treasure and manpower to create a world that questioning the system could be successful.
Freedom leads to wealth and wealth leads to freedom. Destroying one destroys the other.
" Destroying one destroys the other."
Potlatch was an integral feature of some west coast indian tribes. The ritual destruction of surplus. I suspect they enjoyed just as much freedom as the plains indians who didn't do the potlatch thing.
You might get a kick outa this book:
https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=F567E6E14F95A114FB313F03536A053C
"A dramatically new understanding of human history, challenging our most fundamental assumptions about social evolution―from the development of agriculture and cities to the origins of the state, democracy, and inequality―and revealing new possibilities for human emancipation.
For generations, our remote ancestors have been cast as primitive and childlike―either free and equal innocents, or thuggish and warlike. Civilization, we are told, could be achieved only by sacrificing those original freedoms or, alternatively, by taming our baser instincts. David Graeber and David Wengrow show how such theories first emerged in the eighteenth century as a conservative reaction to powerful critiques of European society posed by Indigenous observers and intellectuals. Revisiting this encounter has startling implications for how we make sense of human history today, including the origins of farming, property, cities, democracy, slavery, and civilization itself.
Drawing on pathbreaking research in archaeology and anthropology, the authors show how history becomes a far more interesting place once we learn to throw off our conceptual shackles and perceive what’s really there. If humans did not spend 95 percent of their evolutionary past in tiny bands of hunter-gatherers, what were they doing all that time? If agriculture, and cities, did not mean a plunge into hierarchy and domination, then what kinds of social and economic organization did they lead to? The answers are often unexpected, and suggest that the course of human history may be less set in stone, and more full of playful, hopeful possibilities, than we tend to assume..."
(blurb)
And now progressive watermelons want to eliminate freedom and prosperity, through their religious holy orders manifest in subsistence farming.
https://twitter.com/FischerKing64/status/1646996629629833217?t=uOCcF-P__XG9TarjCTM-OA&s=19
Chaotic situations reveal unseen talent. People in West joke about Putin as mid-level KGB stuck in Dresden, w/out realizing in stultified USSR that was about all a competent person could hope to aspire to. When everything collapsed, he had the chops to rise…
…one of the underlying tensions in the West is that it is also a stultified society, where people of wrong race/gender, w/no connections - they quietly hope for collapse - to open up opportunities. The connected are holding on to what they have no matter what…
…so when Hillary Clinton says Bitcoin could destabilize society, what she means is it could make people like herself less important, and people we’ve not heard of could emerge as leaders in any financial turmoil. This is true across all levels of public/private sectors….
…the left/right paradigm cannot capture this. It’s really about who has access to success/power/wealth and who is locked out. The latter will work through Bernie Sanders or Trump or anyone else to disrupt the system and open doors. And frankly that needs to happen.
And if the Putin example seems too toxic - consider Napoleon. If the French Revolution had not occurred he would have been a talented - but largely unknown - artillery officer serving the Bourbon monarchy. We wouldn’t read books about him, debate his character.
Reason can't stop the spam bots, but blocks all sorts of legitimate links for unknown reasons.
Ok, let's try it this way.
https://twitter.com/aimeeterese/status/1647632110541484032?t=ohz5tbXcpe_0jDItvzRS6A&s=19
“ Since roughly the year 2000, according to survey data, Democrats have moved significantly to the left on most hot button social issues while Republicans have moved only slightly right.”
[Link to article that Reason wouldn't post]
Parody is obsolete, Exhibit #177
The one choice that would be most meaningful in a GOP primary is between Donald Trump and Liz Cheney—the clearest contrast in divergent directions over core principles. Liz Cheney should run for President.
The best thing to happen to the GOP in the past decade is the diminished influence of the early 2000s neocons who got us into the Iraq War. But sure, let's reverse that by running Dick Cheney's daughter for President. 😉
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —————➤ salarypay.com</a
"But sure, let’s reverse that by running Dick Cheney’s daughter for President."
Stop it. You're going to make Buttplug vote Republican.
How about a Liz/Hillary co-president ticket?
If it is a democrat ticket, you need a POC and a trans - - - - - - - -
So maybe co-VP as well?
https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1647656930058588161?t=x5sSOHFS4cytw3skyO7KMQ&s=19
Part of a fair and balanced media is providing options for people to support the voices they want.
This was made difficult when cancel mobs made social media unusable for anyone who wasn’t a staunch liberal.
The paradigm has changed and people like @elonmusk can support who they wish.
PS: Subscribe to The Rabbit Hole, ty
[Link- "staunch liberals only group who feels they can share their political opinions"]
Ironically; Not a single petroleum accident has caused 1000 square miles to be UN-inhabitable for 50-years and counting.
And P.S. that "Climate Emergency" is an absolute hoax PROVEN not only to be a hoax by reasonable evidence but by the guarantee of the test of time.
Either energy source seems excellent; but only a F'En idiot would weigh their value in consideration of a "Climate Change" hoax.
A couple of things need to happen:
1. The anti-nuclear “because it would mean more people" mindset needs to die. People who think that humans are a disease on planet earth need to be removed from power.
2. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs to be completely dismantled and replaced. Nuclear industry insiders will tell you that the NRC is the biggest impediment to Nuclear progress in the US.
3. WE NEED EDUCATION! Why do we allow media idiots to talk about Chernobyl when Chernobyl was grossly outdated and not remotely representative of modern reactors? The same with Fukushima. Why do we allow nuclear fearmongering when more people die from wind turbines than nuclear? Time for Americans to quit being the world's idiots.
4. We need to flood America with cheap energy. The single best thing we could do is overbuild our electrical capacity at the expense of our current power marketing industry. The power industry would be a small casualty in pursuit of far greater economic gains.
Yes, I've thought about and researched this a lot.
No, I can't imagine Biden nor his ideologues having the cognition.
" The single best thing we could do is overbuild our electrical capacity at the expense of our current power marketing industry."
If Democrats keep pushing electric vehicles, building out of the electrical capacity necessarily has to accompany it. If it doesn't, all the electric vehicle initiatives will end up being canceled, scaled back, not enforced.
No Chernobyl didn't kill that many in the mass of population wise.
But it did practically permanently pollute 1000 square miles (a lot).
And Fukushima is just proof that cannot be ignored even in modern systems.
There's a need to figure how to stabilize radio-active material before going full in on it as the magical solution especially when oil is still available.
So what is the difference between MAGA Republicans and the Mises Caucus variety of libertarians?
Both are anti-war (at least as far as Ukraine goes).
Both are suspicious of federal law enforcement ("defund the FBI!"), etc. Of course in the Republican case their position is probably more self-interested rather than altruistic.
Both seem to be about equally outraged about the COVID lockdowns and response to that.
Both are fine with state bans on abortion as far as I can see.
Both are comfortable with using public schools as battlegrounds in the culture war over LGBTQ issues.
Both tend to be prone to conspiracy theories - seems to me most probably believe that the 2020 election was stolen, that the COVID vaccine is more dangerous than the virus, etc.
I guess a difference is that libertarians ostensibly want to dismantle the welfare state, while MAGA Republicans are pretty adamant about defending Social Security and Medicare.
Also libertarians want to get rid of the Fed, and I'm not sure if MAGA Republicans would be on board with that.
Are those the major two issues separating MAGA Republicans and Mises Caucus Libertarians - the welfare state and the Fed? Are there others?
Narratives. Lol.
Major difference I see is how the respective groups arrive at their policies. One is rooted in principle, and it's not the folks in red hats.
See the Army training film "Don't Be A Sucker." Splitting up a country is standard christian national socialist and fascist rulebook play. Also uninspected borders. If nobody were watching, when would Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, France, Holland... even know they were being invaded? Comstockery, depersoning and enslaving females seems to be God's Job One. Screeching against a National Bank was a Jacksonian Dem pastime when the Brits were gearing up to attack Qing China. Since Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act to help Daddy Warbucks, GOP envy boiled over.
Oh, how could I forget about the sacred borders. Yeah, the two teams seem on the same page there too.
A RINO free Republican party would be the libertarian party.
I've said that many times.
ENERGY buffs should also look up "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear," by Petr Beckmann, and "Commonsense in Nuclear Energy" by Fred and Geoffrey Hoyle. Life expectancy at birth correlates closely with access to energy--at least it does for all who Work=F=ma for a living.
https://twitter.com/Sen_JoeManchin/status/1647344544600715264?t=2WKQIytPQvo_t_odRav8JQ&s=19
#ICYMI: In my lifetime, I have never seen the United States of America in a more just war. Our purpose is to defend freedom and fight for democracy, and that's why we’re supporting Ukraine every step of the way as they defend their country & their way of life.
[Link]
Yesterday Russia launched a missile at a residential building, killing at least 11, including children
Today, Russia destroyed a church
But hey, Russia is the good guy somehow!
Go suck Ukrainian and globalist cock elsewhere, soy.
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1647650356585807873?t=pgNjBLSW8d73FIekvlJwrQ&s=19
"4 out of 10 Gen Z'ers believe that the founders of the United States are better described as villains than as heroes. Somewhere along the line, a significant portion of young adults developed the idea that America's founders were more evil than good."
[Link]
Proper villains indeed. I blame Guy Ritchie.
More energy is good. But not everyone enjoys the fruits of it.
Look at the mining of cobalt. It's medieval stuff
But it enriches Communist China, so Biden is all in.
After all, his kid got commissions for helping the Communist Chinese get the franchise in Congo.
Eight word alliteration chain? Even the Caged Demonwolf would be impressed.
The New York Times originally reported that David Koresh and his followers were armed with machine guns, which is why the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms] went after them in the first place.
Amazing isnt it.
He saw a black conservative so he had to pounce.
Notice sarc has started calling him team red. Yet rages when you call him team blue. And he pushes a lot more team blue/neocon lies than even Mike.
Jeff made a complete retarded fool of himself below lol.
"A country with a subtropical and tropical climate"
Maybe Miami makes you merry.
If it's our surfeit of Bengal Tigers, try Cincinnati.
Doesn't Miami use the oil amounts you claim above. So no comparison there. Or did you not realize that?
How do they not realize this just proves both their own retardation and their own partisanship?
He's got a pair of these
https://tintoyarcade.com/x-ray-glasses-retro.html
"Doesn’t Miami use the oil amounts you claim above. "
It's not oil. It's energy equivalents to that contained in a kilo of oil.
It's worse than that, Florida does in fact recognize April as Confederate History month (from jeffies own link).
The horror.
The War Between the States
The Second American Revolution
The Late Unpleasantness
The War of Northern Aggression
The War Against Textile Tariffs
So many names; so long ago - - - - -
He should stick to water. Maybe he could leave the basement.
"The southernmost big city in the continental US is a legitimate comparison to an entire country for some people, I’m sure."
For starters, the entire population of Bangladesh. I promise you they don't give a shit about how many tigers roam the streets of Cincinatti, or your quibbles about the legitimacy of their paltry energy consumption.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —————➤ salarypay.com</a
They don't want to teach about slavery
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —————➤ salarypay.com</a
Less calories than gravy.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
SITE. —————➤ salarypay.com</a
Here's another:
Newly widowed woman calls the newspaper.
"I'd like to place a notice: Hershel Moskovitz, aged 77, passed away yesterday."
Editor:
"That'll be $10. A dollar a word, 10 word minimum."
Widow:
In that case, "Hershel Moskovitz, aged 77, passed away yesterday. Car for sale."
Not in smoky huts. That's the moral of the tale.
Mosquitoes don't hang around in smoky huts. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around?
I'll let you in on a trick I learned in Himachal Pradesh. You have a room in a guest house. You've been coming and going all day and the room is full of flying insects. When you're thinking of retiring for the night, seal the room as best you can and light a bunch of incense sticks. Let them burn a while. You can sit outside on the verandah enjoying a Kingfisher or two. When you're ready, open the door and watch the insects make a bee line for the fresh outside air. Doesn't work for scorpions, though. Check your shoes before you slip them on in the morning.
But we are afraid to win - - - - - - - -
He’s just so pathetic, yet such a bitter drunk he won’t shut up. Unless I call him out for being a pussy. He’s terrified of me since he drunkenly treated to kick my ass. Probably wet himself after he sobered up and I didn’t let it go.
Sarc has probably gotten his ass knocked in dive bars more times than any of us have had hot meals.
Democrats, and their plots, are very precious to him.
"Mosquitoes that spread malaria can do it when people leave their huts."
People spend most of their time indoors. In the US it's as much as 90% of the time. Perhaps it's less in Nepal, I don't know. The fact remains that Nepalis started to notice a rise in malaria after the gas cookers were installed and a fall once they were removed. I understand you resist the implications. It's par for the course here.
I'll let you in on an old bee keeper trick. One that lets them remove honey from hives without being stung. They have a smoker, a small container of burning grass with a bellows. They pump smoke on the bees which temporarily stuns them into quiescence and remove the honey. It seems that smoke has roughly the same effect on bees as it does on mosquitoes.
It's easier and safer for a mosquito to bite a sleeping person in his hut than to bite that person while he's awake and active outdoors.