Struggling Artist
Plus: Digital AR-15s, actual AR-15s, politicians livestreaming sex acts, and more...

Libertarian hero? At the end of last week, the Department of Justice filed nine tax evasion-related charges against Hunter Biden, the president's son.
"The charges include evasion of assessment, failure to file and pay taxes and false or fraudulent tax returns," reports Axios. Biden allegedly failed to pay $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019, for which he has since settled up.
During those years, Biden "spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle rather than paying his tax bills," according to the indictment. Included in the indictment is a sketch of Biden's budget, which included $772,548 in ATM withdrawals in 2018 (wonder what that was for…) and an entire category for "payments—various women" (separate from the "adult entertainment" category, mind you). It's unclear when he found the time to work on his SoHo art show, but he's nothing if not busy.
Careful observers will remember that this isn't the first bout of legal trouble the president's failson has gotten into. "In September, he was indicted in Delaware on three charges stemming from his illegal purchase of a handgun in 2018, a period when he used drugs heavily and was prohibited from owning a firearm," reports The New York Times. (More on the government's combo drug-gun war from Reason's Jacob Sullum.)
"If Hunter's last name was anything other than Biden, the charges in Delaware, and now California, would not have been brought," said Abbe Lowell, Biden's lawyer. This is, of course, patently absurd; if anything, Hunter has received more lenient treatment—including a cushy job and plenty of money to spend on, ahem, ATM withdrawals—because of his familial connections.
"There is now a very real prospect that President Biden's son will be defending himself in two federal criminal trials during a presidential election year—as Mr. Trump, his father's likely opponent, confronts the possibility of two federal criminal trials in his classified documents and election interference cases," reports The New York Times.
Fallout: Liz Magill, who served as president of the University of Pennsylvania for less than two years, just resigned following pressure from the board and a dicey congressional hearing in which her answers regarding free speech and antisemitism on campus were deemed unsatisfactory.
Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, is facing similar pressure. The Harvard Corporation, which has the power to fire the president it appointed less than a year ago, will meet later today. "Gay, who had previously faced only a few isolated calls to resign from the presidency, has received mounting pressure to step down," reports The Harvard Crimson. "On Friday, more than 70 members of Congress—including two Democrats—signed a letter to Harvard governance calling on Gay to resign."
Meanwhile, The New York Times still somehow managed to eke out a "Republicans pounce" headline as if that's the real story: "As fury erupts over campus antisemitism, conservatives seize the moment." But I don't think that's really the right framing for this: When university administrators who spent the better part of the last decade policing microaggressions are suddenly totally fine with student groups drawing Hamas paragliders on their poster art, you should focus on them rather than their critics. (The correct approach, of course, is for administrators to permit all kinds of speech, even if it means refusing to coddle students.)
Scenes from New York: Catch two Reasoners on The Megyn Kelly Show if you know what's good for you.

QUICK HITS
- "To be able to say a gun is destroyed, disposal companies crush or cut up a single piece that federal law classifies as a firearm: the receiver or frame that anchors the other components and contains the required serial number," reports The New York Times in a big piece on how gun buyback programs aren't actually destroying the guns. "The businesses can then sell the remaining parts as a kit: barrel, trigger, grip, slide, stock, springs—essentially the entire gun, minus the regulated piece."
- Are scammers using QR codes?
- Al Gore says social media algorithms "are the digital equivalent of AR-15s."
- They said it couldn't be done: "On Sunday afternoon [Javier] Milei signed a presidential emergency decree mandating the reorganisation of Argentina's government into just 9 ministries, down from 18 today," per Financial Times.
- Nothing particularly revealing or explosive in this overly sympathetic Wall Street Journal piece on Helen Toner, the OpenAI board member responsible for much of the drama that ensued last month.
- Yes:
the real criminal here is the government that makes it illegal to build more, cheaper housing https://t.co/xzeBt9IC07
— Aella (@Aella_Girl) December 11, 2023
- Possibly the softest piece I have seen in a long time, which fails to ask Virginia Democrat Susanna Gibson why exactly she streamed sex acts for money on the website Chaturbate, and what her expectation was, in terms of whether such things would be exposed during her campaign for Virginia's House of Delegates. Gibson points to one study claiming that 90 percent of millennial women have taken nude pictures, and attempts to draw a close comparison to her own quite different conduct.
- Too much beauty to handle:
— Chris Freiman (@cafreiman) December 10, 2023
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
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden and long live fucking freedom!
I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I've made such great m0ney.I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happY that I found out about this...
I Worked Here ==> >http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
On Sunday afternoon [Javier] Milei signed a presidential emergency decree mandating the reorganisation of Argentina’s government into just 9 ministries, down from 18 today,
No wonder everyone hates him.
(Oops, wrong place, oh well.)
Obviously reducing government spending and power makes him a dictator.
Reorganization might not mean much. Knocking out a wall between every other office...so what? I'm sure there's more to it, though.
The 13 departments he cut were mostly leftist narrative machines. He kept the ones that effect execution of government for the most part.
He promised to cut them, not move them.
Argentina's European parliamentary system makes it easier for Milei to accomplish his goals, but you understand from where his opponents come. They are the Peronists coupled with the descendants of European Fascists. See: Francis, Pope.
Good luck finding a leftist who doesn't consider pushing their own ideology and coercing others to abide by it as the two most important "vital functions" of the State. The only reason they'd have any interest in "having the trains run on time" would be to deny the non-believers and political heretics (especially actual liberals) permission to ride them.
I'm rooting for him, at least. We'll see what difference it makes, but I think his priorities and intents are well-aimed. Obviously, good intentions are worth all of fuck-and-naught, but it's good to know what his goals are to see how well he succeeds.
https://twitter.com/FernandoAmandi/status/1733998465804341333
"Viva la libertad, carajo!"
Fuck Donald Trump
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Obama
Fuck Bush
Fuck Clinton
Fuck Team Red
Fuck Team Blue
Boaf sidez!
Fuck a certain obese Nazi commenter.
Why leave Misek out?
He didn't.
I have no hints from his copypasta about the size of Herr Misek. I visualize Herr Misek, Witch-Burning Nazi, and Goldie as more having a "Death-eating-on-a-cold-biscuit" look to them, with Nardz looking like a slightly more portly version of Martin Bormann. All basement dwellers, of course.
🙂
😉
Jeff is the obese one. Don't know how fat Misek is.
Is Misek fat like Jeffy?
Don't know. He didn't whine about other people being forced to protect him from Covid like jeff did.
No, just a lot of screeching about “wastes of skin”. He's got an Ed Gein way about him.
See above. And rest assured, none of this is a turn-on for me to think about. Genocidal Totalitarianism is a dick-dropper to my tastes.
Should Misek be Göring on a diet?
Dude Goebbels up everything.
He can show his Braun and beat Jeffy to the buffet.
As long as there's enough chicken and waffen for everyone.
He will not see that as funny.
That's all, volks!
Wagen your tail much?
For once there was a commenter thus
Understood nothing less
Cocky he was no less
King of stupid nonsense and fat cuss
Under it all he caused such a fuss
Just once in his time he was not fine
Even he was caught doing a straight line
For he was dull and dumb
For he was droll and numb
You really have not a clue or sign
A lovely poem and acronym.
I think it went way over his head. He also seems to miss a lot of the snark and sarcasm on here.
A mother once said with regret
"My kid's name is Mother's Lament"
She bought him a phone
so he'd leave her alone
And then all her money was spent.
Not my best work. 5 out of 10.
It helps if you make it acrostic.
Too much work. ML isn't worth it.
No, no. Go on.
Haha.
Faux outrage Jeff is bullshitting again.
Fuck Donald Trump
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Obama
Fuck Bush
Fuck Clinton
Fuck Team Red
Fuck Team Blue
You forget that in these comments once you say "Fuck Donald Trump" you've outed yourself as a left-handed leftist from Lefttown, and anything that contradicts that is a lie.
Speaking of gun buybacks, some 2A guys made some deals with prospective “sellers” and were able to save a few guns from destruction:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Br8OPm7StdA&pp=ygUTQnJhbmRvbiBndW4gYnV5YmFjaw%3D%3D
So a neighbor friend got mildly upset when he took (in his words) a rusty old .22 rifle to a buyback, hoping to get a promised $100 gift card. When he got there, the buyback had been cancelled, apparently after some negative publicity.
I think his upset came from how public politics (and specially pro-gun rights politics) cancelled the buyback. But since these buybacks are primarily political gestures, I don't have a problem with the public speaking out.
I do question how the government, which did not sell the guns in the first place, can "buy them back"
"If Hunter's last name was anything other than Biden, the charges in Delaware, and now California, would not have been brought,
I’m sure that brought a smile to trumps face.
If his name was other than Biden, he would have been charged in multiple other states and federally for multiple other felonies, but lawyers for the defendant are going to say what they say.
I'm sure they never charge anyone that miraculously comes into, then promptly blows $5M without a job or business. Hunter is such a common case, that we should view him like the single birhting person waitress underreporting tips.
Not the stupid gun stuff, but everything else, yes. And of course he should have been charged first and foremost as an unregistered foreign agent, but 10% and all that.
Too much beauty to handle:
Ok. If you say so.
Fuck Nikki Haley.
I accept this as well as Chumbys declaration.
Have I missed the articles attacking Haley for her warmongering?
There was one dovetailed in between the dozen DeSantis/Florida pieces.
Did I miss it being declared Florida week? I have never seen this many articles about one locale banged out repeatedly. From the headlines, though, they don't appear to all be hit pieces.
Divide and conquer. They need DeSantis out of the way before their candidate Haley can focus on the next potential candidate.
They were pretty critical of her stupid proposal to eliminate internet anonymity.
The problem with Nikki Haley is she's a warmonger and anti-rights. Unfortunately, everyone else in the Republican primary is worse. There's no winning pick here.
(And Biden is much much worse. The closest I've gotten to a major party presidential candidate I could vote for in my adult lifetime was Ron Paul, and we all know he never had a chance.)
Not saying he's anywhere close to perfect, but Vivek is hands down better than Haley and Christie.
Vivek is basically there to be a proxy for Trump. Him calling Haley "Dick Cheney in high heels" is a total Trump slam.
If you think everyone else in the primary is worse . . .
OT
What is with the word "longhouse"?
Is that a reference to something, or am I missing some key information?
Chicks in charge.
One possibility of its reference:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Longhouse
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/02/what-is-the-longhouse
'Jonathan Haidt explains that privileging female strategies does not eliminate conflict. Rather it yields “a different kind of conflict. There is a greater emphasis on what someone said which hurt someone else, even if unintentionally. There is a greater tendency to respond to an offense by mobilizing social resources to ostracize the alleged offender.”
'Nowhere is this more apparent than in the realm of free speech and the tenor of our public discourse where consensus and the prohibition on “offense” and “harm” take precedence over truth. To claim that a biological man is a man, even in the context of a joke, cannot be tolerated. Instead, our speech norms demand “affirmation.” We are expected to indulge with theatrical zealotry the preferences, however bizarre, of the never-ending scroll of victim groups whose pathologies are above criticism.'
Repeal the 19th.
When I was enlisted, I went to shop that was about 50/50 male/female, which was actually pretty unusual in that it was a tech shop where they were usually about 10% of the total career field.
The shop was utterly dysfunctional, with everyone divided up into 3 or 4 bitchy, backbiting cliques, and the typical high school shit that happens when you have members of the same group fucking each other.
Guess what happened when all these women PCS'd or separated, and the shop became a 90 percent male or greater? You guessed it, most of that dumb drama ceased.
The also built long houses, as did the Anglo-Saxons. Actually it was a common type building for migration period Germanic tribes and iron age Celts for that matter. It largely disappeared in the Middle Ages though, except in some commercial applications such as inns and taverns.
Meant for below.
OK, as long as women have to go to that special hut when it's that special time of the month.
Longhouse makes me think "vikings" (Norse, actually) or Indians (American). Heap big pow-wow or Icelandic Thing.
So how far off am I from context?
Well with Vikings it was Longboats, which were extremely functional and versatile, useful for both seafaring and river navigation. So clearly something practical, useful, and effective is far removed from whatever this is.
The also built long houses, as did the Anglo-Saxons. Actually it was a common type building for migration period Germanic tribes and iron age Celts for that matter. It largely disappeared in the Middle Ages though, except in some commercial applications such as inns and taverns.
Another note, the Scandinavians of the time often built their halls/long homes in the shape of a longboat and graves were often, even when not interred with a ship or boat, dug in the shape of a longboat, even in inland settlements, such was the importance of the longboat in their culture. It survived even the Christianization of region. Haraald Bluetooth, considered the first king of a united Denmark, and the first verified Christian King, had the inner buildings of his ring forts built in the shape of longboats.
Thank you for asking. I'd seen this term pop up in a way that made it sound like simply everyone knew what it was.
The "longhouse" is slang for gynocracy and specifically a society ruled by tut-tutting disapproving harridans who want to keep the men from being men.
So basically, america today.
The original lady penis euphemism.
Mrs. Grundy on steroids.
Some baseball player needs to put in 10 years to make $700,000,000?
Reason's sugar daddy watches his inherited fortune fluctuate by that amount in a typical week. 🙂
#ChumpChange
What could be more valuable than the ability to throw and catch balls?
OnlyFans content creators don’t have an answer. If they come up with something, they will keep you abreast.
Oh, come on!
Regarding OnlyFans talent, there’s a lot of folks pulling for them.
And they are up against stiff competition.
As long as they don't go flaccid themselves.
Or "to". Different preposition as well as proposition.
Or cum on
A lot of ball-catching happens on OnlyFans, I've been told.
He can also hit balls.
Topps, bottom, both. He’s versatile.
The part that is valuable is his ability to get people to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars to watch him do it, while paying more hundreds of dollars for 'food' and beer.
Hitting homers.
I’ll be surprised if the Dodgers get more than 5 years out of him. He’s already had two Tommy John surgeries and he’s 29 years old, so he’s going to be aging in dog years after he hits 30.
If I’m the Dodger brass, I don’t use him as anything more than a spot starter or occasional long reliever to preserve his elbow, and make him a full-time DH like Edgar Martinez was for the Mariners. Is that worth $70 million a year? No fucking way, but the Dodgers blow their nose with $100 bills, and good for Ohtani for suckering it out of them.
The name value of signing him is immense, especially for teams in California. It's like Ichiro-he was such an iconic symbol for Japanese fans that his monetary value was even higher than his on-the-field productivity because he brought an audience with him.
True, although with Ichiro, Seattle got ten great years out of the guy as well, mainly because he was a contact hitter with a low strikeout rate.
Ohtani's issue, besides his elbow issues, is that he's a straight power hitter, and those guys tend to fall off pretty rapidly when they get on the other side of 30 as their bat speed declines. By contrast, Tony Gwynn and Paul Molitor, who didn't have a lot of power but consistently hit for contact, were productive at the plate into their late 30s. There's exceptions like Mike Schmidt, and maybe Ohtani will be one of them, too, but the odds are stacked pretty high against it.
The interesting thing is Ichiro was known in Japan as a long ball hitter. He really became a contact hitter when he was drafted by the Mariners. His on base percentage and speed also tended to overshadow his outstanding performance as an outfielder. His speed made it possible for him to cover a huge area in the outfield, and he had a cannon for an arm (and accuracy). He could hit the catcher from the deep right field of Seattle's field without having to throw to cutoff man.
It was a risk to try and tag up on him when he fielded a fly ball.
Access to democratized information harms (D)emocracy says ManBearPig.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/al-gore-warns-people-having-access-non-mainstream-information-threatens-democracy
Al Gore is wrong to want to ban algorithms.
Al Gore is wrong to try to compare algorithms with AR-15s.
However, do you think he has a point here?
No.
Wrong again jeffy.
ML of course would be happier with dissenting voices silenced by a populist lynch mob.
What an apt description of BLM matter and antifa.
Who are the only people actually doing that right now, Creamjeff? Team Jeffy, that's who.
And no, not buying gay porn for school libraries isn't the same thing, you sick fuck.
LOL, talk about taking the piss. You and Gore's whole pretense about a "shared base of knowledge" is an exercise in question-begging. The whole promotion of the internet as a decentralized information superhighway is based on the presumption that there is no such fucking thing.
That fathead's only mad because he can't jawbone every single person to chant "the science is settled," like every other technocratic bugman wants.
I'm thinking there is another synonym for shared base of knowledge... Hmmm what was it again... Oh yes that's it (snapping finger) group think!
Yes. There should be taxes on algorithms with an oversight committee that decides which ones are fair and which ones violate the vaguely written new guidelines created by the committee.
I didn't say anything about taxes or committees. Only on the validity of his point in the part that I quoted.
The libertarian position would be to form a committee, perhaps even a new cabinet level department called the Ministry of Managing MisInformation (MOMMI). It would work hand-in-hand with the Department of Education to help train public school students to recognize and discern social media content that does not serve as a basis for reasoning together collectively. It would be expected that folks would voluntarily comply though mandates could be issued should they choose not to.
The *rational* position is not to ignore legitimate problems because they are problematic for one's ideology. As much as we love free speech and free expression around here, there are negative externalities associated with the exercise of these liberties. One of these negative externalities is that many people will make collective decisions based on ignorance that wind up affecting all of us in one way or another. We can propose shrinking the state as much as we want, but there will still be a state and there will still be demagogues willing to exploit the ignorance of the masses to use the state to serve the demagogue's own purposes. So you can either joke about bureaus named MOMMI while demagogues successfully beguile ignorant morons to steal more of our paychecks to fund idiotic programs to stop illegal immigrants because "they r stealing jerbz" or to stop climate change because "OMG THE WORLD WILL END IN 5 YEARS", or you can propose to do something about it within the framework of your ideological constraints. Your choice.
People can make choices for themselves and own any of their mistakes. If others want to voluntarily help them through those events, that is their choice. No need for a collectivist government MOMMI to step in or be mandated to participate. Force feeding narratives or tools to arrive at the conclusions of approved narratives is far from libertarian or individualist.
The NAP provides an excellent basis for “reasoning together collectively” when each party chooses to do so voluntarily.
“As much as we love free speech and free expression around here…” Should have stopped right there.
So you deny the existence of negative externalities at all?
Nope.
"As much as we love free speech and free expression around here, there are negative externalities associated with the exercise of these liberties. One of these negative externalities is that many people will make collective decisions based on ignorance that wind up affecting all of us in one way or another. "
True or false?
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
So you admit that there are negative externalities, you just don't give a shit about them. Is that it?
Yes. No. The third is one question regarding two questions.
You do understand that even though you don't give a shit about negative externalities, that they just don't vanish, right?
You didn’t understand my response.
Apparently not. So if you acknowledge that there are negative externalities, what do you plan on doing about them?
Exercise my liberty to avoid the impact of them. For example, I defected from an area that pushed reasoning together collectively to a place that interferes much less with individuals. I’m happier, have less wealth coerced from me, and am able to engage in more activities that don’t require a permission slip from the folks wanting to be reasoning together collectively. There are negative externalities of the reasoning together collectively groupthink.
That is the problem with negative externalities, like the 'tragedy of the commons'. You can't really avoid the costs even though they are not your fault. Again, here is the problem as I see it:
You have a bunch of ignorant, misinformed voters who are easily swayed by demagogues to vote for horrible policies
Those horrible policies are then inflicted on the rest of us
We all pay the price for their voting behavior
How do you intend to avoid the impact of their vote to empower the demagogues to impose horrible policies on you?
I am saying, hey, maybe a better solution here is for voters not to be so ignorant and misinformed in the first place. Can we think of a way to improve our educational systems with better media literacy and better critical thinking skills so that we have a better educated populace, not a bunch of drooling morons easily swayed by demagogues? And can we do this within a libertarian framework, so that we don't have a bunch of coercion and censorship? Is this something that we could potentially strive for?
But no, all I am getting from you is that I just have to accept that people are dumb and that there is nothing that can be done about it. Your view of libertarianism is very bleak and hopeless.
The libertarian position is to reduce the impact government which likely includes reducing government significantly. More government isn’t going to fix that and will increase the negative externalities on liberty seeking individualists.
Most people don’t pay the financial price for collectivist, groupthink reasoning. They get government to coerce another to pay that. They do pay the price by participating in a broken system that requires some government entity take from others to subsidize their lifestyle. Libertarian circles calls these folks NPCs.
Ending taxpayer coerced funding of education allows people to seek the best options for their needs without collectively reasoning wealth away from others.
People are dumb and need Top Men! to collectively reason them through life via approved methods that arrive at the conclusions that folks who reason together collectively approve! *Howard Dean scream*
But this doesn't address the question. Sigh.
I mean, I might deny any particular claimed externalities existence, but I don't deny them in general. I'm not sure the existence of any of them matter when it comes to something like free speech, though.
I don't believe Gore on this negative externality. Enforcing conformity by creating an echo chamber might assist 'reasoning together', but it constrains you to what are likely poor decisions, because you will generally lack accurate information, and are unable to assess how inaccurate your information is. (The chance the mainstream media gets it right and gives you the best information possible is vanishingly small). A marketplace of ideas is the best solution to information problems, not a problem in itself.
If we can't agree on what the facts are, we should do nothing together collectively.
I don't know about 'enforcing conformity'. Maybe that is what he wants but that is not what I would support.
I agree with the marketplace of ideas approach. But a marketplace of ideas is not the same as a marketplace of facts.
“As much as we love free speech and free expression around here,”
You don’t.
Fuck off, creepy stalker
What does “reasoning together collectively” mean, Mr. Radical Individualist? And why do you think it’s a good point?
By “reasoning together collectively” I take his point to mean that we all operate under the same basic set of facts to form our opinions.
For instance, we may not all agree on what the immigration policy ought to be, but we at least have a shared understanding of what the current state of immigration actually is.
In the modern age however that shared understanding is lost. On so many issues, people simply disagree on basic facts, preferring instead their tribal narratives.
So how can we make informed decisions if we don’t even agree on what the facts are? We can’t.
That leaves open the door for demagogues, people like Trump and RFK Jr., to come in and present their “alternative facts” and paint a story that is pleasing to their audiences but is ultimately not true. They are backed up by a social media bubble that reinforces that message without being successfully punctured by reality.
That is the danger, and something that we ought to guard against.
People who don't agree with you are tribalist, got it.
How would you guard against it?
People who don’t agree with you are tribalist, got it.
Not what I said.
How would you guard against it?
We need better media literacy and critical thinking skills in education.
But it's what you mean. And it's what Gore means.
And if I'm wrong, who are you talking about then? Do you include yourself?
No, it's not what I mean. Reasonable people can disagree on policy even when all agree on the same shared set of underlying facts. Then the disagreements are more along the lines of disagreements over values and ideology. I have no problem having a conversation with anyone on any subject when we can all agree on what reality is. The problem is when we cannot even agree on what is real.
What do you mean, 'do I include myself'? Is my knowledge of the world incomplete? Of course. But I try at least to be guided by a search for understanding of the world as it exists. How about you?
Facts changed!
No, the danger in the modern age is that a large faction on the left, who claim the mantle of sophisticated intellectualism (e.g. The Science) have now proudly rejected the concept of objective truth, i.e. facts. Good luck sharing "facts" with them, and trying to have a logical discussion. BTW, they also reject logic.
I agree that it is a problem on both sides. Do you?
What would you say about the people on The Right who think that the 2020 election was stolen, the voting machines were hacked by Hugo Chavez or whatever? How about the people who could not tell you the first thing about the charges that Trump was indicted on, but are absolutely convinced that he is innocent?
How do we get to a state of shared reality so that we can make informed decisions in a democratic context?
No one claimed Hugo Chavez had anything to do with the 2020 election.
What we do know about the 2020 election seems fishy. When you have governors circumventing state laws about when, where, and how ballots can be submitted, it seems fishy. When such executive orders are invalidated by state and federal courts later, it seems even fishier.
It’s funny he brought up the 2020 election, as he’s hand waived away any facts that don’t fit his sides narrative and purposely mischaracterized legitimate concerns by dishonestly bringing up Hugo Chavez.
Meanwhile is there a single person that questions the 2020 election that is trying to silence people that think it was clean?
No one claimed Hugo Chavez had anything to do with the 2020 election.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-legal-team-false-claims-5abd64917ef8be9e9e2078180973e8b3
I'm not so sure I'd trust the author of your fact check there, Jeffy. She claims such things as Dianne Feinstein as being a "centrist".
https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=AliSwenson
https://youtu.be/wtahfdX_pa0?si=agbj8Cyyccy3pw5n&t=132
I will accept your apology now
https://notthebee.com/article/what-do-you-know-nearly-100-of-fact-checkers-political-contributions-go-to-democrats
Her profile short bio even lists her as covering 'Threats to Democracy', which, every single time I've ever heard it used, it's either media sycophants or left-wing politicians, and every single time it means 'Attacks on Democrats' or 'Threats to Democrat Party Hegemony'. Every. Time.
Well - and this is just spitballing here - maybe both sides are not *equally* bad here?
Which presidential candidate again is openly stating that he will be a dictator on Day One?
He says a lot of things, mostly mocking people who ask absurd questions based on terrible assumptions, sometimes telling people what he thinks they want to hear.
In this case, it was clearly a joke. You should listen to the whole context.
Which one is actually doing it?
Hmm.
https://knowyourmeme.com/news/joe-bidens-speech-on-democracy-warns-of-extremist-maga-forces-and-trump-threatening-midterm-elections-drawing-memes-and-comparisons-to-dark-brandon
Haha, here’s Lying Jeffy pushing another left wing narrative about Trump. So predictable.
Wait, you want me to dismiss Trump's dictator comment as 'obviously a joke' and then you want me to take seriously as ominously threatening a still shot of Biden with raised fists at a podium?
Have you seen the video in question? What was he talking about?
Here's the remark, in context. People can decide for themselves.
https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1732408584443498652
Lying Jeffy’s already decided, and he’s sticking with the left wing narrative.
One dumbass said something stupid. Many people concerned about election irregularities were critical of Sidney Powell and the specific focus on Dominion, especially in the weird way she tried to connect them to things.
Saying one claim is not credible is not the same as saying there are no credible claims.
I'm not talking about legitimate complaints about the 2020 election. I'm talking about the claims that the 2020 election was outright stolen, that Biden didn't legitimately win, that there was massive widespread fraud. That sort of thing. That was the tenor of my Hugo Chavez comment.
61% of Republicans think that there was "a lot" of voter fraud in the 2020 election.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/06/03/73ca6/2
That is the result of a lack of a shared reality. In this case it is driven by a Team Red information bubble inflated by the ego of a certain orange demagogue.
There's similar results when it comes to Team Blue and climate change. In this case the lack of a shared reality is driven by irresponsible science reporting and the need by a lot of media to try to link every major storm to climate change.
This is not a healthy result and it is worrisome.
Strange how when talking about the ridiculous claims made about the 2020 election, you only mention those from the right. Why not mention that claim that 2020 was "the safest and fairest election of all time." That was repeated quite a bit by the corporate media and Democrat politicians. Or is that some of the "shared set of facts" we should presuppose before having conversations?
“the safest and fairest election of all time.”
I don't think anyone said that.
I think some people did say that it was the "most secure in American history". Were they wrong?
https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/news/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election
I think you are being intentionally obtuse by saying no one claimed it was the safest and fairest election. Anecdotally, I've heard that many times, especially right after election day 2020.
"Most secure [election] in American history." How would you prove that?
The CISA document you linked sounds great. How was 2020 different on the specific basis they mention vs 2016? The claim that 2020 was the most secure sounds like propaganda to me, as all it talks about is how there is a recount process. That was true of every prior election in recent American history too. 2020, on the other hand, had by far the highest percentage of mail-in ballots.
Mail in ballots are more susceptible to fraud than in person voting--it's why most European countries tend not to allow it on a wide scale. So how can you or CISA or anyone claim that 2020 was the most secure when it had the highest level of mail in voting?
*to be clear, I'm not arguing that there was widespread fraud in 2020, nor am I arguing there wasn't. There isn't enough information to state either conclusively, even if the available information points in one direction.
I think you are being intentionally obtuse by saying no one claimed it was the safest and fairest election.
dude, it was your exact quote.
You made up something that nobody actually did say, and I was trying to help you by providing you a link to the claims that people were actually making. A thank you would be in order.
Safest, fairest...google turns up any number of such references...granted they are not CNN, etc., who mostly used the words "most secure"...but someone was saying it
It and its right-wing media allies continue to push the notion that the safest, fairest, and the most participatory national election in U.S. history was corrupted and stolen from their dangerous leader, Donald Trump. But they see no inconsistency or irony in the fact that the same voters participating in the Presidential elections provided their party gains at the congressional level and in state contests
They talk about T Rump getting a record number of votes, but don't talk about Biden getting eight million more votes in the safest, fairest election the world has ever known.
Who on the right is using The Science as an excuse to silence people?
"How do we get to a state of shared reality so that we can make informed decisions in a democratic context?"
This is from someone calling himself a radical individualist.
Chavez died in 2013, no?
What would it take for you to stop bullshitting, Jeff?
An extra large stuffed crust pizza. Extra cheese. Pepperoni. Sausage.
That might do it for a half hour at best.
"have now proudly rejected the concept of objective truth, i.e. facts."
"We choose truth over facts." - Joe Biden, 2019
A democracy which cannot survive Trump is not a system worth defending on its own merits.
LOL, no kidding. These hysterics have no idea how useless and feckless some of our past presidents were,
Their hand-wringing is magnified because of a dumb assumption that we have to have a quasi-fascist FVEY/EU World Order where the left-liberal consensus of the moment is implemented on global socio-economic systems, particularly the west, with the financial backing of multinational corporations and led by guru-like gnostics whose technocratic acumen is equated with eternal wisdom.
In the modern age however that shared understanding is lost.
Oh but before the algorithms it was all shared understanding? Bullshit. All social media does is amplify our lack of shared understanding. Regulating (what Gore is calling for) algorithms will only make that worse. Gore is neither intelligent or wise if he thinks he can do it. Case in point, during covid social media tried to put their thumbs on the algorithm scales and not only did it not bring us to some collective understanding, it back fired stupendously.
Right, you can't impose shared understanding by force or coercion. That is what the COVID censorship on social media demonstrated.
It has to come from an individual willingness to seek truth over narratives. That is what's lacking.
Since when did you chose individual truth over a narrative, pusher of vaccines and masks, Mr. Bears-in-trunks?
Oh, there you go. Trying to turn the conversation into something personal again.
Are you going to discuss the subject or are you going to discuss me?
You opened that can of worms with the Covid censorship stuff.
No, you chose to attack me personally rather than debate the issue.
So obviously, your answer to my question, is that you are not interested in a search for truth. Got it.
It has to come from an individual willingness to seek truth over narratives.
Except, you don't, and you sure as hell didn't during Covid (your comment just before the quoted comment). It's rather hypocritical, don't you think, that you followed the narratives then, and then say this now?
You're lying and trolling. No more discussion with you is possible on this matter.
How is it lying when you supported the narrative during Covid? You opened this matter, brought it upon yourself, and now you're pissy. Your record speaks for itself.
It was your team that supported the "masks don't work" narrative, which is false. My position was always that mask MANDATES were wrong, but mask usage could be beneficial depending on the circumstances.
It was your team that supported the "vaccines are poison" narrative, which is false. My position was always that vaccine MANDATES were wrong, but that the vaccines were valuable to certain segments of the population and that people should get them if they think they would stand to benefit from them.
It was your team that continually supported these simplistic binary black/white narratives which were motivated more by politics than by science or evidence. My position was considerably more nuanced and more evidence-based than yours.
So fuck off with your "defending the narrative" bullshit. That was you and your team.
Um, who was it that used the "bears in trunks" analogy?
So now you are changing the subject. When it came to the subject of masks, did you or did you not support the “masks don’t work” narrative even though it is false?
Sorry, dude, but cloth, surgical, and even N/KN95 masks do not work. I told you this as an expert in that field. You can believe what you want to believe as I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.
They do work, to varying degrees, depending on the situation and environmental conditions. ONCE AGAIN it is the ridiculous black/white binary thinking. You refuse to examine the details and instead go for the narrative-friendly generalization which obscures the truth.
Then you really have no idea how masks and respirators actually work, Jeffy.
It is all a matter of the tolerance that you set.
If your tolerance is so strict that very little if any transmission is permitted, then yes only the highest standards of masks should be deemed to "work".
But that is not a reasonable standard for ordinary community usage under ordinary conditions. Not everyone is working in asbestos abatement on a daily basis.
If 10 people wear masks, and 1 of the 10 is sick, and the masks "work" 70% of the time on average to prevent transmission, then that means in this crude estimation, on average, the virus will be spread 70% less than if no one had worn a mask. Will it still be spread? Yes. But it won't be spread as much. Your position seems to be that unless there is zero transmission then it doesn't work at all. And that is an unreasonable standard.
"If 10 people wear masks, and 1 of the 10 is sick, and the masks “work” 70% of the time on average to prevent transmission, then that means in this crude estimation, on average, the virus will be spread 70% less than if no one had worn a mask. Will it still be spread? Yes. "
But it was/is a disease that had a 99% survival rate, except for the small cohort of people over the age of 80 who also had one or more comorbidities, esp. obesity.
If you want to throw numbers around, it seems rational that we ought to have focused on providing solid protections for the most vulnerable, instead of using nursing homes as COVID convalescent centers. Shutting down the economy, forcing everyone to get vaccinated and mask up, those were all maddening overreach that didn't save anyone.
No one ever batted an eye when 30-50k Americans died from the flu virtually every year; no one demanded mask mandates or forced vaccinations when flu killed 90k Americans in 2017-18. The CDC doesn't even ask hospitals to attempt to identify and count flu deaths, but it does accept data if it provided and lumps them in with pneumonia deaths, so the reported flu numbers are almost certainly undercounted.
COVID is markedly more dangerous than flu for a small portion of the demographic (esp. in those over 65 years old), but outside that at-risk group, the flu and COVID are pretty comparable in the risk presented--COVID is not like an airborne Ebola killing 60% of those who breath contaminated air.
Like the flu, virtually everyone who contracts COVID will recover on their own without medical intervention (something like 99% in the lower-risk groups, and 92% in the at-risk groups); like the flu, a small percentage will need some medical treatment; like the flu, a small fraction of those needing medical intervention will require hospitalization; like the flu, a small fraction of those hospitalized will require extraordinary intervention like a respirator.
It breaks down to only being able to discuss approved narratives and only in support of said narratives. He has supported every form of internet censorship.
Remember a couple weeks ago he had no problem with the U fucking N advising countries how to control their citizens speech, until, you know, we know exactly what those “recommendations” are?
Because when it comes to the U fucking N trying to control speech, the devil’s in the details.
He demands exclusion of every source he disagrees with such as The Federalist, then posts Salon articles the next day lol.
Remember a few weeks ago when you refused to even read a paper from a source you disagreed with, because the source was the UN? You had no idea what the source said or didn't say. You prejudged it from the start and decided it was an attempt to "control speech". You proudly chose ignorance over knowledge. Good job!
It’s not the role of the UN to tell governments how to control their citizens speech.
I AGREE WITH YOU. But you wouldn't even know if that is what the document said because you refused to read it. That was my point.
So what did it actually say?
You can read it for yourself:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000387339
Lmao, so you didn’t even read it. Classic Lying Jeffy.
OK, let's rip it apart, shall we?
Right from the foreword:
Right from the get-go, we see the terms "hate speech" and "misinformation" used. So-called "hate speech" (WTF defines that?) and "misinformation" (again, WTF defines that?) are a part of free expression.
Utter horseshit. Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech exists, period, whether you like it or not. it does not need guaranteed factual information with facts not in dispute. The very fact there are opinions means the facts may very well be in dispute.
The term "human rights" is used throughout the document. There are no "human rights", there are only "civil rights".
These intergovernmental organizations have no business doing any such thing.
OK, what if two cultures are in conflict, say a Frenchman makes a drawing of Mohammad and puts it online? Will the culture of one, the French, or the other, Islam, override the other?
Again, no governmental agency (or otherwise) should have this right, to request periodic reports of this kind. The act that such a report exists would serve to stifle freedom of expression.
Wholly unnecessary. A digital platform is a business. If they deem there is abuse, then they should have the right to warn or remove the abuser (such as Pluggo posting CP here). There's no need for "human rights assessments" or "gender impact assessments".
All the state needs to do is stay the hell out of the way and keep its mitts off the internet.
ITC, sometimes I think you are so wedded to your tribe that you have lost the ability to think rationally.
I think "guaranteed" is too strong of a word, but she has a point. She doesn't say that freedom of opinion doesn't exist without this guarantee. She says that freedom of opinion is a 'farce' without it. That is different. On a *practical* level, what good is freedom of opinion if your mind is full of nonsense and your news sources are full of lies? Sure you have the freedom to spout your opinions, but they are worthless insofar as they are wholly disconnected from reality.
There are no “human rights”, there are only “civil rights”.
That is ridiculous even coming from you. Are you just going to object to whatever the UN says?
Of course there are human rights. They are another term to describe the rights that all human beings are entitled to by virtue of existing. Civil rights refer to rights that individuals have by virtue of living within a specific civil society.
The right to free speech is a human right. The right to a trial by jury is a civil right, dependent on the type of society one lives in.
A committee of Experts! assigned by UN apparatchiks will reason together collectively to assign definitions to those terms.
However, these same social networks, whose name holds so much promise, all too often become bubbles of isolation, cocoons of misinformation, which sometimes foster conspiracy theories and extreme violence.
The dude doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about here and instantly blows his credibility. I see politically left shit in my feeds all the time, and I'm hardly a repeat connoisseur of their content.
Al needs to get on an average Yahoo/YouTube/Facederp/Xwatter message board sometime. People virulently disagree with each other all the time.
Keep going Lying Jeffy, you’re doing great!
chemtard radical globalist
What’s even more hilarious is that he’s echoing Klaus Schwab, after pointedly refusing to read the very citations given to him when it was pointed out that the WEF was providing the backing for all this “shared consensus” and ESG crap:
“The Great Narrative meeting is a linchpin of the Great Narrative initiative, a collaborative effort of the world’s leading thinkers to fashion longer-term perspectives and co-create a narrative that can help guide the creation of a more resilient, inclusive and sustainable vision for our collective future.”
That’s straight from the WEF itself.
Oh great, another fallacy. Just because Klaus Schwab wants to create some 'global narrative', that means every attempt to create a shared understanding of reality is a sinister plot of the WEF to undermine the West. It is known.
You will own nothing and be happy.
Globalism is great, except when the top globalist is exposed.
Yeah, why the fuck should I quote Schwab, despite the fact that his fucking political thralls like Justin Trudeau are in charge of, and have been made commissars for, actual countries, and he says the same fucking thing here that you did above.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy when these people are open and upfront about their goals. Hell, even Elon is, or at least was, on board with Schwab's psychopathic idea to put a chip in everyone's brain so the powers that be can monitor them.
Every attempt to 'create a shared understanding of reality' is a dark plot by definition.
Remember that in this the focus is on the 'shared understanding' - not on 'reality'.
Every attempt to ‘create a shared understanding of reality’ is a dark plot by definition.
Tell that to every science department at every school.
Pluto used to be a planet. And the only two sexes used to be Venus and Mars. Now Uranus is in play.
The pursuit of science is *not* the 'creating a shared understanding of reality'.
And the science departments of pretty much every school is onboard with 'shared understanding trumps reality'. As seen by their pronouncements on climate, gender, politics, etc.
The pursuit of science is *not* the ‘creating a shared understanding of reality’.
Umm, yeah it is. It is an attempt to come to an objective understanding of the natural world. What do you think the pursuit of science is?
In this very discussion I get the impression that we are talking past each other. I am not talking about propaganda or narratives here. I am talking about no-shit objective reality. That is the reality that I would like us all to have a shared understanding of. Understand?
It is nice for you to want things. Individualists, libertarians, and voluntarists get that there are times others do not want what they want and will not participate in such activities. Face diapers, pronouns, collective funding of individual responsibilities, etc.
Collectivists? They trend to demand others do as they or their collectivist masters says.
" It is an attempt to come to an objective understanding of the natural world. What do you think the pursuit of science is?"
Pursuit of science or employment of scientists. Those are a Venn diagram with unknown amount of overlap (but I'm pretty sure the overlap is nowhere near 100%).
A large number of scientists want to get published, get paid, and garner accolades for themselves--science be damned. They will plagiarize papers, falsify data, whatever it takes in order to get papers published.
They will self-censor knowing that anything they might say that goes against the narrative of whatever subject, be it gender or climate change or whatever, can end their careers.
The pursuit of actual scientific truths lies somewhere pretty far down the list of priorities for far too many scientists. When someone gives a scientist a grant, the scientist is naturally going to be disinclined to render a finding that stands in opposition to any stated positions held by the funding entity. This is true even (especially?) if the funding body is a government.
That shared base of knowledge has historically been based on religion. Now that religion is post-modern neo-marixism thanks to people like Al Gore. No thanks then or now.
Sure, historically. But that has not been the case for a few centuries now.
Sure buddy.
No. Do you?
He would claim that if we were to post and ask as he did that we were in favor of it. Therefore, Jeffy deserves the same treatment.
One man one vote means ignorance is of equal weight in voting.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lying lefty shit.
The "shared base of knowledge" was just as full of shit in the 60's as it is now.
Would we have learned a damned thing about the COVID issues in the system of the 1970's?
The former Vice President said that functioning democracy relied on a “shared base of knowledge that serves as a basis for reasoning together collectively” but that “social media that is dominated by algorithms” upsets this balance.
Everyone knows what he means by "a shared base of knowledge".
For those too slow to pick up on the meaning:
An agreed-upon set of settled "facts".
Carefully curated by "experts." Top Men, if you will. It's nice to have a Big Brother who can give you helpful advice.
Despite your snark, do you think knowledge arises out of nothingness? There ARE experts who do have greater expertise than most people in certain particular fields. Or do you think you are just as capable in nuclear physics, gourmet patisserie, molecular biology, and Olympic triathlons as those hoity-toity 'experts'?
1. You do realize that such experts can disagree.
2. You also do realize that people play politics with them and shout down experts who may actually be right.
3. You're guilty of not listening to experts here.
Just because they have a high Intelligence ranking doesn't mean their Wisdom score is on equal footing. In fact, it's typically in reverse correlation.
It certainly doesn't mean we need to treat them as gnostic gurus. They're deliberately taking on the trappings of a secularized priesthood that shouldn't ever be questioned or rejected, less the masses be punished with the removal of blessings--in this case, open debate and expression.
They’re deliberately taking on the trappings of a secularized priesthood that shouldn’t ever be questioned or rejected, less the masses be punished with the removal of blessings–in this case, open debate and expression.
More like, they are being punished for their expertise by daring to speak in an authoritative manner in the area of their expertise.
Oh, like you did to me not so long ago here, Jeffy? Don't be such a hypocrite.
More like, they're being punished when their expertise gets kicked in the nuts by reality, and they continue to presume they should be able to continue to appeal to authority despite rolling on the ground in agony.
I think experts are often blind to things outside of their expertise. Sometimes they're even so arrogant as to think that they're experts on things adjacent or near-adjacent to their expertise.
Here's an oldie for you: Guy goes to his doctor with unspecified pain. Doctor refers him to an oncologist, who diagnoses him with cancer. He visits a virologist, who diagnosed him with a viral infection. He visited a vascular surgeon who declared he had a circulatory issue. He visited an orthopedic surgeon who said he had joint problem. He visited a neurologist who diagnosed him with, you guessed it, neurological issues.
All of these experts are going to tend to frame issues in the ways most familiar to them. That doesn't make them right. What makes experts valuable is their ability to explain their reasoning and how they come to determinations. Then, people of ordinary intelligence and capacity can judge if they've made flawed reasoning, and can hear from other experts to see who has the best argument.
I'm not as smart as Isaac Newton or Rene Descartes. But, given my own human reasoning, I'm able to conclude that Newton's model of physics better explains the working of the natural world much better than Cartesian physics (and also, Einstein later came along to deliver the deathblow to the Cartesian models).
But do you even know that, for close to 200 years, there was an entire school of "experts," extremely intelligent and educated men, who espoused and followed the Cartesian model of physics and gravitation based on the "aether?" and vortices? They rejected Newton's explanation of gravity. It was still being argued in the lifetime of Lord Kelvin. These were experts who were extremely intelligent, well-read, and just plain wrong for hundreds of years. All of them presumably much smarter than I.
Experts can only add their voice to the dialogue. They should not control it. And every idiot hick from Bummsville gets to inject their voice into the conversation. If a lot of people get it wrong, it's still better when the dialogue is open and when people don't get to self-appoint themselves as "experts" in an effort to monopolize correctness and truth.
I think experts are often blind to things outside of their expertise. Sometimes they’re even so arrogant as to think that they’re experts on things adjacent or near-adjacent to their expertise.
And sometimes you get people who aren't actually experts but think writing about stuff makes them experts even when they get the most basic shit wrong, like journalists
Especially science journalists (and Ron, no you aren't excluded from this group).
"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."
– Michael Crichton (1942-2008)
This is irrelevant.
Experts, during Covid, had no idea what they were doing. But, to protect their status as experts, demanded we all 'share an understanding of reality' in which they were always right and justfully in charge of society.
Even when there were significant numbers of other experts advising different paths. Those experts were shouted down, ostracized, and smeared by authoritarians mad with the power of the pandemic.
No. "reasoning together collectively”" LOL. On point from a Typical Collectivist like you.
no. It's just a lot of words to say "we controlled the narrative through mass media and now we're losing our grip"
They desperately want the entire internet to be like reddit.
However, do you think he has a point here?
The former Vice President said that functioning democracy relied on a “shared base of knowledge that serves as a basis for reasoning together collectively” but that “social media that is dominated by algorithms” upsets this balance.
Short answer: No. Longer answer: Fucking no.
I have to wonder: do you believe in objective reality?
Gore is not and has never argued for objective reality. He has argued for "settled science", and "no debate".
I'm not talking about Al Gore. I'm talking about objective reality.
If there is an objective reality, and there is a group of people who accept this objective reality, but there is another group of people who do not accept this objective reality, it's going to be difficult for these two groups of people to make important decisions, don't you think?
Jeffy, is it "objective reality" that there are only two sexes? And that one sex cannot become the other?
You were absolutely talking about Gore, in the posted quote above. And of course there is objective reality; sadly you are typically in the camp that rejects it.
If an objective reality is provable and knowable, that knowledge will be shared and naturally disseminate. If something is true but not provable or knowable, it doesn't matter significantly if other people don't accept it. If you know something but can't prove it, acting upon it, or worse, forcing others to act on it, that's a significant cause for concern.
Ultimately, if there are people who reject clear and convincing evidence when it comes to a topic, their ability to exert influence over that topic will diminish because their opinions are based on nothing. It may not happen quickly enough for us to be satisfied, but it's better than having someone try to declare "This is objective truth" and force people to conform to that opinion. The democratization of ideas means a lot of ideas, opinions, and morals continue to exist even if they are bad and harmful.
Ultimately, if there are people who reject clear and convincing evidence when it comes to a topic, their ability to exert influence over that topic will diminish because their opinions are based on nothing.
But that's not true, we have seen how that is not true. The clear and convincing evidence is drowned out by a flood of garbage delivered with a pleasing-sounding narrative. And many people either do not have the time or the ability to sort through the gigantic ocean of crap to try to find the nuggets of truth, so they go with "common sense" (i.e., their pre-existing biases) or they just accept the narrative as fact because it sounds good. We saw that with the COVID vaccine and the 'stolen 2020 election' on the right, and with racism and climate change hysteria on the left.
And the demagogues know this - they don't have to be honest, all they have to do is convince enough people that their story is the 'right' one and then once they have power, reality no longer matters - they have the power to create policy to do what they like. So you have Chris Rufo blaming every classroom discussion on race on 'Critical Race Theory' and trying to ban it, not because it's accurate, but because he wants to have the power himself to shape the classroom discussions according to what HE thinks is right. So you have Bernie Sanders blaming every problem on 'capitalism' and 'millionaires and billionaires', not because it's accurate, but because he wants the power himself to shape economic policy according to what HE thinks is right.
This is why we can pretty safely ignore flat-earthers, without a need to use the force of government to "re-educate" them or silence their fanatical ravings.
Again, that's irrelevant.
*Shared understanding* trumps objective reality in the plans to control information, mate.
1984 was all about a society that had a 'shared understanding of reality'.
FFS, Twitter is literally how the Left 'reasons together collectively' - and it has no relationship to objective reality. The egregore doesn't care about *facts*! It exists to eat brains.
Look.
Did Biden win the 2020 election legitimately? Yes or no?
Was there massive voter fraud that threw the election to Biden?
Did foreign hackers change votes on Dominion voting machines?
Did poll workers in Atlanta stuff the ballot box?
These are all answerable questions that have definitive answers beyond the realm of reasonable interpretation and speculation, not mere opinion.
If we cannot agree on the *CORRECT* answers to these questions, then how can we possibly even have a rational discussion on more substantive issues?
"Did Biden win the 2020 election legitimately? Yes or no?
Was there massive voter fraud that threw the election to Biden?
Did foreign hackers change votes on Dominion voting machines?
Did poll workers in Atlanta stuff the ballot box?
These are all answerable questions that have definitive answers beyond the realm of reasonable interpretation and speculation, not mere opinion."
And the 'true' answers don't matter.
What matters is that everyone has the same answer. Hence all the effort to make everyone answer those questions the same - not to provide evidence to support reality so that people can evaluate the evidence and come to the same answer but to FORCE the same answer.
No, the true answers very much do matter.
I'm not talking about some 1984-type dystopia here. I'm not talking about coercing people to repeat propaganda. I'm talking about actual truth, actual reality. Can you put down the pitchfork a moment and have a discussion about how to go about creating an environment where we can have a discussion based on a common set of CORRECT facts?
Yet, by pursuing a 'shared understanding of reality' - backed by government force - that is exactly what you get.
Its what you get every time and place its been attempted.
Did Biden win the 2020 election legitimately? Yes or no?
Were millions of votes cast in direct violation of state laws and constitutions, facilitated by election boards and courts that felt like COVID gave them the ability to ignore those laws? Yes or no?
It's certainly reasonable to accept that Biden managed to garner enough votes in enough states to win the election. OTOH, it is also reasonable to believe there is a chance that Trump might have won, if each and every vote cast was subjected to the level of scrutiny expected in upholding state laws (e.g., Wisconsin, Geogia, and other states allowing ballot drop-boxes in violation of state laws and upheld ex post facto to have been illegal but moot).
Was there massive voter fraud that threw the election to Biden?
Was there massive "fortification" designed to prevent Trump from having a chance to win? As for fraud, we'll probably never know, because most efforts to make a determination are met with "No, you're not allowed to look into this." or the more mild form "It's moot now, why bother?"
Using the term "voter fraud" tends to linguistically lead a reader to consider only individuals casting illegal votes (e.g., voting more than once), and leave out actions like ballot stuffing by election officials, harvesters, and campaigns.
Not to mention that virtually every proposal to increase security, transparency, and accountability in elections is fought tooth-and-nail by one side.
Did foreign hackers change votes on Dominion voting machines?
Did poll workers in Atlanta stuff the ballot box?
Maybe, maybe not. I know there's been endless litanies of "most secure ever", but these are combined with dragging of anyone who dares to raise questions of this nature, such that methinks they doth protest too much.
And WTF is an egregore?
Lol.
I mean, I can Google the term just like anyone else, and it is some sort of Occult term for a non-corporeal entity representing a collective consciousness, or something? I am not sure what the relevance here is.
Gotta read further down the wikipedia page...
In esotericism, the term "egregore" has been used to denote a "group mind"[2] or "collective consciousness" of a religious community.
Following the usage of "egregore" as a "collective entity", a 1987 article by Gaetan Delaforge in Gnosis magazine defines an egregore as "a kind of group mind which is created when people consciously come together for a common purpose".
That you don't know means you don't know enough to be pontificating about 'shared understandings of reality'.
I would appreciate some more detailed reference to some more specifics about what you're referring to. My brief Google searching did not fill me with confidence that it is a real thing.
I have to wonder why the typical collectivist uses "radical individualist" in its handle. Is it deliberate lying, irony, or just ignorance? What other socks does it use here? Are they more accurate or just as dishonest or dumb?
I don’t call him Lying Jeffy for nothing.
Only a retard thinks that democracy is based on a “shared base of knowledge that serves as a basis for reasoning together collectively”.
Consider the source that wrote that shit.
More damage was done by the post modernist marxists and their products than any algorithm without ideological interference.
That you support those products and the manipulation of the search and presentation algorithms to support those marxist narratives and goals has been common knowledge for years
Its literally saying that democracry only works if the elite control the information you have access to to ensure everyone has a 'shared base of knowledge'.
You ever read "The Diamond Age"? The 'neo-Victorians'? And how the higher up you were in that society the more curated your news was to ensure everyone had the same views?
So if he 'has a point' then democracy in a country of 300 million people simply isn't possible because either we have too divergent views when left to our own devices or someone has to take charge to ensure we all share the same narrative (the truthfulness of the narrative being irrelevant) - which wouldn't be democracy then.
No, that is an insanely paranoid way to interpret it.
All I am saying is that we collectively can't have a rational discussion if we cannot even agree on basic premises or simple facts.
And what you're saying is irrelevant.
That's not what 'creating a shared understanding of reality' does in reality.
You even admit this as you rail against MAGA 'for ignoring facts'.
Facts don't matter when creating a 'shared understanding of reality'. Its a replicator and subject to evolution like any other replicator. What counts is how well it can replicate, not how well it accords to reality.
Dude, put down the shrooms. What is the "it"? This egregore thing, some mystical occultish non-corporeal being? I can't say I have a lot of confidence in the existence of such a thing. It sounds like a lot of mumbo-jumbo to me. This is so weird.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
----------
We cannot have a meaningful discussion when one side keeps changing the long-understood meaning of words.
E.g.,
Dr. Paul Cieslak, the medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations with OHA, explained to KATU that..."Permanent means indefinite. It doesn’t necessarily mean permanent," Cieslak said.
and
Per the glossary that was on the Johns Hopkins University website until Tuesday, lesbian is described as a "non-man attracted to non-men."
and
The CDC changed its definition of vaccine from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease” to “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” The public health agency also changed its definition of “vaccination.”
and
Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., claimed in an interview that the border with Mexico is secure, even as she acknowledged that waves of migrants are flowing into the United States.
"No doubt about it, our border is secure, and we are in the midst of a humanitarian crisis, and we have to fix a broken system," Pressley said, before being interrupted by Tapper to see if he heard correctly.
"You think the border is secure? Or it is not secure?" he asked.
"Yes, the border is secure," the Massachusetts congresswoman claimed a second time. "And we’re in the midst of a humanitarian crisis that has been created by a broken system."
Tapper questioned her reasoning that the border is indeed "secure."
"I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying, except for the idea that the border is secure. If you have people crossing the border, it’s just by definition not secure," Tapper said.
"Okay, it sounds like in there you acknowledge that there are millions of people crossing the border illegally, which would mean that the border is not secure," Tapper said, later asking, "Would you grant me the point that the border is not secure?"
and
Planned Parenthood announced that abortions aren’t just for the ladies:
“Labeling abortion as only “women’s rights” or a “women’s issue” erases the experiences and identities of queer, nonbinary, and trans folks who also have abortions and downplays the additional barriers they face when accessing care. Abortion access affects us all, period.”
Planned Parenthood isn’t the only organization that uses interesting language to describe women. Instead of ‘women,’ organizations and individuals have started using any of the following:
pregnant people
people who get abortions
birthing parent
birthing people
Perhaps he would be happier not using 1000x the amount of energy as the average american
Basically, AlGore is wanting to do with algorithms what his ball-and-chain Tipper Gore tried to do with music albums, i.e. require that they receive Gumming imprimateur.
And algorithms are basically a set of instructions followed under certain conditions. Soooo...Would that include Porky Pig's Mom's grocery list? "A l-l-l-loaf of b-b-b-bread, a b-b-b-bottle of milk, and c-c-c-come home right away?"
Think he and Rev get their flourishing capes from the same tailor?
Fucking statist cunt.
He doesn't exactly look like he walked to COP28 either.
Sounds like Al lifted none of Tipper's old speeches and substituted 'social media algorithms' for 'rock and roll'.
Biden allegedly failed to pay $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019, for which he has since settled up.
If he already settled up, why the criminal charges? The IRS (theirs) already got their money.
LOL at this.
It was a rhetorical question, ninny.
No it wasn’t dummy.
I will add rhetorical to the list.
There you go again, calling me a liar because what I say differs from the voices in your head.
Go play in the middle of a highway.
You never made it a rhetorical question. Again, you expect others to suddenly understand what you mean instead of just reading what you wrote. You've been on the internet long enough to know better.
Look below at my reply to dipshit.
And you should know better, having been on the internet so long, that it is virtually impossible to tell a rhetorical question from an actual question with a disclaimer of some kind.
Fair enough.
Probably you didn’t really mean it as a rhetorical question. Then after you were called on it, you shifted the goal posts, per usual.
I know, I know, “voices in your head” etc.
So you're going to be another shithead who calls me a liar when what I say doesn't fit the narrative about me?
No, only when your exact words don't match what you later say about them.
I agreed with ICP that I should put a disclaimer on future rhetorical questions. What more do you want?
You could read the charges instead of acting ignorant. Wilful evasion. The case lays out how he had the money to pay and refused. It lays out how he declared personal expenses as business expenses. It was so bad his accou tanks and him sign a letter saying they were responsible for his representations.
It is amazing watching you defend the charges against Trump on novel construction and then turn around and defend the Bidens from clear violations of law.
On top of that Hunter didn't pay the taxes off. A friendly liberal lawyer did. And the IRS whistleblowers released emails showing the lawyer paid off the debt for political concerns, an illegal campaign donation. On top of that the payoff counts as income to Hunter, a gift, liable for more taxes. So they worked to create fake loan documents as Hunter has not paid a cent back for the "loan."
Again. You claim to not be a Democrat but your actions say different.
But that's okay, because your hero James Comer says that even if all that is true, the Biden DOJ is still protecting Hunter Biden.
The only thing dipshit sees is political tribe. That's why he says Trump is a poor, innocent victim, while Hunter is guilty as sin. If he was a Democrat he'd be listing off all the reasons why Trump is guilty while waging personal attacks on everyone involved in Hunter's prosecution.
The idea that both are political is something his brain cannot comprehend.
"The only thing dipshit sees is political tribe."
Say's Sarcasmic as he helps notorious authoritarian and child castrator, fat Jeffy, board his rhetorical war canoe, just because team blue.
Self-awareness isn't a Sarcasmic superpower.
Jeff and sarcs constant defense of their comments is already a meme.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-was-only-pretending-to-be-retarded
Just because I sometimes agree with people who are not part of your political tribe doesn't mean they or myself constitute or are part of one.
What is Trump guilty of?
"But that’s okay, because your hero James Comer says that even if all that is true, the Biden DOJ is still protecting Hunter Biden."
They intentionally let numerous problems exceed the statute of limitations.
The whistleblowers have not been kind.
They blocked numerous examples of inquiry if it involved Joe Biden. Jeff continues to ignore this. It includes a search of Joe's House when Hunter was living there. Wolfe, ASUA prosecutor, continually told the agents investigating what they could ask witnesses. Multiple witnesses were denied interviews under the same claims. Jeff ignores this intentionally.
It was a rhetorical question because the answer is obviously politics. The point was to show the blatant hypocrisy paraded by you and others who whine and cry all day long about how Trump is a totally innocent victim of political prosecution, and at the same time say the exact opposite about Hunter.
And you took the bait. Hook, line and sinker.
I already added the word rhetorical to the list for you.
So your position is that Hunter is an innocent victim of political prosecution?
I wouldn't say innocent, but his prosecution is just as political as Trump's.
So should Hunter be prosecuted or no?
I don't really care.
The bullshit alarm is now sounding.
Then you should get it fixed.
Should Trump be prosecuted or no?
Danger. He has past comments regarding trump. And it wasn't a "i dont care" comment.
I'm mixed on this. I think that some of the things he did were criminal, however I don't like the precedent of criminally charging outgoing presidents. The next step after that is leaders having to flee for their lives after losing elections, like they do in third world nations.
So you think trump committed crimes, but he shouldn't be charged for them?
I told you I'm ambivalent.
am·biv·a·lent
/amˈbiv(ə)lənt/
adjective
having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone.
Do you have another example of someone who wilfully evaded taxes and was not charged for 5 years allowing 2 of the years of known violations to drop off? Since you're claiming it is political and all. An example would help butress your bald assertion.
Irwin Schiff comes to mind... Oh wait.
As you know, that's an intellectually dishonest question because prosecutions make the news while what you are asking me does not.
For fuck sakes sarc. Is is not dishonest as there are dozens of well publicized cases of tax fraud convictions. Even for politicians.
Youre simply admitting your excuse is a bald assertion created to be an excuse. Nothing more. You have zero claims to politics being involved. Where most of us see the IRS whistleblower testimony saying how unusual investigating Hunter was with the political appointees of the DoJ hampering them as the political actions.
So we have known whistleblowers and acts documented acts showing not prosecuting as political. And yet your assertion is the opposite. It is just so partisan and stupid on your part.
What is not publicized is the cases that are not prosecuted. You know this. That's why your question is dishonest, just like you.
Again. Made up bald assertions to justify your blind partisan bullshit. Lol.
The oft-made claim right now is "If his last name wasn't Biden, he would not be prosecuted."
The existence of people not named Biden being prosecuted for similar crimes goes a very long way to disproving that claim. It certainly may also be true that others in similar situations were not prosecuted...
At this point, all we can say is that he might not be getting the Clinton-esque "no reasonable prosecutor"..."To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
And Joe already gave back the classified documents he stored in his Corvette garage. So no crime!
Hunter's up to 12 counts now. Still behind Trump, but he's gaining. How about some human trafficking charges for flying prostitutes around the country to service him? And $770,000 in ATM withdrawals? Obviously done for a nefarious purpose, which should trigger civil asset forfeiture.
Ahhh but hunters charges have a thing called evidence
Do you mean old-timey evidence, like documents and photos, or new woke evidence, like third-hand claims from a political operative?
The most hilarious expense he wrote off was 350k in tuition payments. How many hookers was he paying to go to school?
Give Hunter a break. Running a special school for young girls gets expensive.
I'm kind of curious if Hunter's name shows up on the various logs at Isla Lolita and on Epstein's plane.
I'm guessing Joe and Corn Pop may also appear on those pages.
Well, we all know Corn Pop was a bad dude.
Possibly the softest piece I have seen in a long time
NTTAWWT.
Oh you mean she's so retarded that the article says, "To be clear, Ms. Gibson never acknowledged or consented to videos being recorded, this is illegal pornography because it is illegal to record someone in a state of undress without consent." Even though The Lover's State is one-party consent and both she and the writer are more retarded than your average Millennial or even a dim-witted Zoomer on the topic.
90 percent of millennial women have taken nude pictures
Also, 30% of them have Russian Accents or grew up on a farm in Kansas.
Also also, all of them have a body count of less than 5.
Liz is doing A-OK.
Biden Adminstration’s unconstitutional viewpoint targeting against pro-life pregnancy centers.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/12/the-biden-administrations-latest-assault-on-the-pro-life-movement/
“Since the end of Roe v. Wade, the pro-abortion zealots in the Biden administration have waged a spiteful war against pregnancy resource centers across the country.
The latest salvo is a proposed rule that would cut off Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to pro-life pregnancy resource centers. “Programs that only or primarily provide pregnancy counseling to women only after they become pregnant likely do not meet the reasonable person standard,” Biden’s new proposal states.
The glaring hypocrisy in the proposed rule is revealed in its selective focus on pregnancy resource centers, while turning a blind eye to other organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider. Despite Planned Parenthood spending more than $1 million in TANF funds in 2018, it is curiously spared from the same scrutiny and demand for special justifications imposed on pregnancy resource centers.
This is blatant government targeting, and it is wholly unconstitutional.”
“Over the past 18 months, at least 88 pregnancy resource centers have been attacked, vandalized, and firebombed by left-wing extremists. The advocacy group I founded, Advancing American Freedom, has repeatedly asked the DOJ to explain what steps it is taking to bring these domestic terrorists to justice, but to no avail. After receiving no response, we have now filed suit against the DOJ to find out why the Biden administration refuses to hold violent leftists accountable for their crimes.
But violent radicals aren’t the only ones attacking our pregnancy resource centers — some of our elected members of Congress are fueling the violence with hateful rhetoric. Senator Elizabeth Warren accused pregnancy resource centers of “torturing” expecting mothers, she proposed fining them $100,000, and she demanded that they be shut down nationwide. These outlandish attacks only add fuel to the fires of rage that have been burning since the Left lost Roe.”
“I’ve long believed that you can judge a nation by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens: the elderly, the infirm, and the unborn. For America to be a just and compassionate nation, we must end the Left’s war on pregnancy resource centers, starting by blocking the Biden administration’s misguided TANF rule.”
But wait, TANF is welfare. Why should those lazy deadbeat women be getting welfare? I mean, that’s all that welfare recipients are, right? Lazy deadbeat moocher leeches?
Oh, WAIT A MINUTE. Some people deserve welfare, like poor conservative scared conservative pregnant conservative women. But some people don't deserve welfare, like illegal immigrant invaders. Is that it?
Ok, so then we cut off Planned Parenthood as well, then right?
Sure.
Fine by me.
Cut them all off, like most of us have been saying here for years.
"This is blatant government targeting, and it is wholly unconstitutional.”
Hey, what's wrong with that?
The latest salvo is a proposed rule that would cut off Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to pro-life pregnancy resource centers.
I shouldnt have to pay for this just like I shouldnt have to pay for abortions.
There is also the Biden Administration ignoring the terroristic attacks on these facilities, and Democrat lawmakers trying to make them illegal.
And I am happy to donate my hard earned money to the local assistance group. Diapers and ultrasounds are distributed with my donations. I would encourage others to help also.
Catch two Reasoners on The Megyn Kelly Show
Only one libritarian is in that photo
She looks like the younger photo in another editor’s 30-year challenge.
Intellectual property rights; what intellectual property rights?
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-wants-seize-patents-pricey-drugs-and-use-government-make-them-cheaper
Should be titled “The Best Way To Kill Innovation Act”.
So... Dole didn't want to pay for his boner pills
I’m mixed on this. On the one hand it doesn’t seem right that private companies get patents and exclusive profits from publicly funded research, on the other hand the government will no doubt stretch the definition of “publicly funded” to the point where it will claim credit for everything.
The terms of the funding were made at the granting of public dollars. Biden is seeking to change those terms after the fact. Since he recognizes the constitution and such.
“I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.”
Darth Biden
I think Vader was less corrupt and more redeemable.
Biden is Palpatine? Or Grand Moff Tarkin?
I'm going to go with the latter because I don't think he orchestrates anything, just is perfectly happy to implement evil plans of his master, the dark shadowy character we don't get to see until the third (I mean chapter VI) installment.
Biden is Salacious Crumb
Moff Tarkin, because he's digitally added . . .
The right thing to do is stop giving out public money, not take private IP. But I suspect the the purpose of the money has always been to gain leverage, not spark innovation.
Agreed.
That's not the real point though. Universities and researchers accept government grants to develop these drugs. When these developments come to fruition, pharmaceutical companies often purchase the patents since universities do not have the same manufacturing competencies. From whom should your beloved government claw back their (our) investment?
Tend to agree, but the solution is to stop publicly funding them. It's fascist economics otherwise.
But the kicker here is that the duly authorized LAW says one thing, but Biden intends to issue "guidelines" that do not comport with the law as written. In other words, Biden intends to dictatorially issue commands to be obeyed, Congress be damned. Just like his student loan crap, just like Obama's DACA crap...
Biden State Department paid NewsGuard to smear news sources who didn't comport
I remember arguing with Americans during the Trucker protests and Trudeau's fascist shenanigans about how constitutional protections mean nothing if the government simply ignores them. For some reason they thought that the American constitution was magical and impossible to just ignore.
Jeff endorses news guard as a paragon of truth.
No no no. Everyone knows the only source of information anyone needs is The Federalist and Zero Hedge.
And here I thought you pushed Media Matters most of all.
I mean, you only cite Center Square and a few other right-leaning sources. Why?
Since when did libertarian sources become "right-leaning", unless you are a statist to begin with, Jeffy?
He was a Nazi to begin with.
Since they don't push State Narratives to the level Jeff demands.
Is Center Square right-leaning?
Is it because they are for smaller government and accountability?
Now that I read their actual web page, they don't seem half bad. I guess it's just the selectively cited articles that ITC posts here that make it seem right-leaning.
I thought you and Sarc don't believe in selection bias. How many times have you railed against Jesse for pointing out that it's suspicious that Reason doesn't have an article about X subject. He says you can tell the likely bias at play here in how they ignore X story. You and Sarc chime in with, Oh, so if I don't talk about X it means I support X?
What are you talking about? I absolutely do believe in the concept of selection bias.
The problem with Jesse, is that he interprets selection bias through a purely tribal lens. In his world, if I criticize Trump, it *must mean* that I support Biden, and that is false.
Lmao, that’s not what he’s talking about dumbfuck.
And nothing else happened.
What is this, the late Roman Empire?
https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_f32f79fa-961e-11ee-8b33-2f9724eb330e.html
What is this, the late Roman Empire?
Yes
The US has fully entered the age of decadence.
To be fair, the US military has a long history of enlisting foreign immigrants, even offering citizenship in exchange for service. For example, two of my multiple great grandfathers on my maternal grandmother’s side hadn’t even kicked the Danish/German mud off their boots before they were fighting for the Union in the Civil War (one immigrated in 1860, the other 1861, served in the same Illinois regiment and their kids later married).
We also had several immigrants in my unit. Granted all had legally immigrated and were legal residents (one was Palauan, which used to be a US territory and is still a US protectorate, so their status is a little different).
Actually it's a compact of free association, but when it comes to defense it functions the same as a protectorate.
I believe a lot of the libertarians and right-leaning folks in these comments have an issue with giving citizenship to immigrants who serve in the armed forces, but I support it. Someone who's willing to put his life on the line for our country is not someone who's just trying to mooch off of the system. When I served in the US Army, I knew more than a few of my brothers who were that exactly, originally from Columbia, Uganda, Mexico, etc. Each was an exemplary soldier (though that is just my anecdotal, limited experience).
The problem arises, in my opinion, when it's done on such a large scale, including lowering standards, to have non-citizens comprise a sizeable minority, or even a majority, of the troops.
*I don't think the same is true for police though.
The ones I served with were no better or worse than the natural born citizens I served with. But totally agree, if you're willing to die for the country, you should get citizenship.
I completely agree with you here.
Hunter Biden Libertarian hero?
Also - Conservative villain.
NOT odd how our fake Trump Cult "libertarians" get their police state boners raging when it comes to drugs, guns, and tax avoidance.
Hunter is just a piece of shit. Deal with it.
Yeah, but he's turd's piece of shit.
"Trump Cult “libertarians” get their police state boners raging when it comes to drugs, guns, and tax avoidance."
Nobody here has ever complained about Hunter dodging taxes. It's helping his father peddle influence that pissed everyone off.
But you know that. You left it out deliberately because you're a paid Open Society shill.
helping his father peddle influence
Made up bullshit. No evidence exists.
Even Mitt Romney said there was no evidence.
So an entire laptop full of this shit is not evidence? People have been tried, convicted, and sentenced with less than there is on Hunter and Joe Biden.
"Even Mitt Romney"
Mitt Romney is as big a paid liar as you are. There is plenty of evidence as you've been shown.
If you are going to use Romeny as a standard, I am going to need some bona fides of him every being right.
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
"Even Mitt Romney said there was no evidence."
*chef's kiss*
Buttplug bot is now self-discrediting.
So, after you explain why there is a number "2" in your tag ... why did Biden use numerous alias emails to communicate with Hunter's business associates (which, mind you, he claimed he never did).
Because Hillary's email server guy wasn't available to set him up with a private email system?
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/comical-ali-baghdad-bob
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Donkey privilege.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/10/hunter-biden-shames-elites/
But sarc says he paid the IRS, so no fair prosecuting him.
I didn't say anything about fairness. That's what you guys whine and cry about when you whine and cry about how Trump is a poor, poor victim of unfair political prosecution. Fact is that the IRS (theirs) often does not prosecute if they get their money. That means Hunter's prosecution could very well be politically motivated. But to you that's ok because he's part of the other political tribe, while poor, poor Trump is a poor, poor victim of political malice.
It was just hyperbole!
Why don't you whine and cry some more about how Trump is a poor, poor victim.
"even if the candidate was Gandhi, St Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther King Jr rolled into one"
Newsom?
"In other words, son of a US president and a graduate of Yale Law School Hunter Biden did not think that he had any of the same duties and obligations as every single other American citizen. I guess they don’t teach that at Yale."
Wanna bet?
Smile with the birdie (with photo).
https://cwbchicago.com/2023/12/chicago-man-arrested-3-times-since-october-flips-off-mugshot-camera-twice.html
"Chicago cops working a traffic accident scene in the 3700 block of West Lawrence said he stood in front of them, drinking a can of Modelo. "
"Last Monday, police arrested Silva again in the 4000 block of West Foster. Two Jewel-Osco employees said he threatened to kill them as they tried to stop him from shoplifting two cases of Modelo and two bottles of champagne."
You gotta admit, the guy likes his beer.
And not Butt Wipe..er..Bud Light either.
Suck it Dos Equis guy.
BlackRock fires back at DeSantis’ debate comments, says he’s ‘demonizing’ companies
Stop behaving demonically, problem solved.
Larry Fink is lying in this article when he says “We make decisions based on our clients’ best interests, not political or ideological agendas”
If that's the case, then what's the ESG score used for? We already know the answer, Larry.
They'll be no problem if you quit trying to force your activist agenda on humanity. People invest with BlackRock for a return, not so you can go engage in your personal political activism using other people's money. Just be normal. Focus on financials, sound investments and customer service and leave your psychotic socio-political agenda out of it.
Black Rocks Matter!
All Rocks Matter.
Damn. Now I'm cancelled.
“BlackRock fires back at DeSantis’ debate comments, says he’s ‘demonizing’ companies”
Funny coming from a company whose name I could use as the name of a demon’s castle in my Pathfinder campaign.
Larry Fink is lying in this article when he says “We make decisions based on our clients’ best interests, not political or ideological agendas”
Huh, that's literally what ESG doesn't do. Well... wait a minute. "Our clients' best interest. I take it back. Yeah, that's probably accurate.
Stop behaving demonically, problem solved.
Yeah, this blood for misery, oppression, crony handouts, and vague backwoods, 3rd-world ideology sucks. Can we go back to blood for oil?
Old Republican Narrative: By refusing to prosecute Hunter Biden, the Biden DOJ is protecting him.
New Republican Narrative: By indicting Hunter Biden, the Biden DOJ is protecting him.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/08/james-comer-hunter-biden-indictment-reaction-sot-lead-vpx.cnn
Can we at least agree that James Comer is an idiot?
I think we all agree you are.
Look at Jeff pretend that indicating Hunter on lesser charges so he doesn't have to testify is the same thing as indicating his father on the actual issue.
Somehow Jeff thinks lazy sophistry like this will win his arguments.
"Indicating?" WTF phone.
"indicting"
As long as they keep prosecuting him for his easement grass being 2" too high, I'm good with it.
What?
Snark and sarcasm seem to escape you.
He’s not very bright.
He’s got soooo much “nuance” tho.
Wow, that was just....surreal.
"Libertarian hero? At the end of last week, the Department of Justice filed nine tax evasion-related charges against Hunter Biden, the president's son."
Careful, New Liz. Don't fall into the Reason confusion of Libertine with Libertarian. And don't equate princely privilege in a banana republic with rule of law in under a rational, minimal government.
Indeed, and here's the tip-off about Reason Libertines and "Progressives": Neither of them say: 'You, Joe and Jane and Magenta Doakes, have as much right to keep and bear arms, keep the fruits of your labor, and whoremonger as much as Hunter Biden."
Hunter's just more equal than us.
Libertarian hero? At the end of last week, the Department of Justice filed nine tax evasion-related charges against Hunter Biden, the president's son.
If not for the nepobaby graft...
Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, is facing similar pressure.
You know who else slowly turned the Jews into the villain?
Karl Marx?
Stan Lee? Magneto was a Holocaust survivor.
Stan Lee was Jewish, and, according to Remy, Stan Lee was your Dad:
🙂
😉
Remy, The Legend of Stan Lee
https://youtu.be/4prGdZozFb0?si=_D8DhIuGtL4XNDRP
He brings it up in the comics all the time, especially when a fellow mutant is getting too emo about being discriminated against and he needs to one-up them.
Turning Magento into a Holocaust survivor was a massive mistake, because it made him an insufferable hypocrite that kept getting glossed over because of that post-WW2 western creation narrative. The whole fucking point of that character was that he was a eugenicist like Hitler and was seeking to eliminate anyone that wasn’t a mutant, while the X-men were the ones seeking reconciliation and co-existence between mutants and humans, the same way the World War 2 generation tried to foster equality during the civil rights movement.
All of a sudden, he becomes Erik Lensherr, Holocaust survivor, and we’re supposed to fucking sympathize with him for being a mass murderer? It’s really nothing more than lame post-modern, counterculture moral relativism where they tried to make bad guys seem like they had a good point.
Church Father Tertullian? Martin Luther? Phil and Don? Uncle Michael? Auntie Jen?
*BANG! BANG! BANG!*
Open the door, let them in!!!
It seems she may have plagiarized a lot of her doctoral thesis.
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1733976372450853222
It's because she so admires our president and wanted to emulate him.
The DNC?
Pontius Pilate?
Shakespeare?
Charles Dickens?
Catch two Reasoners on The Megyn Kelly Show if you know what's good for you.
"Wrong again, Matt Welch."
*Bullwhip snap!*
🙂
😉
So on Day One, Trump will be a dictator seeking retribution. Everything is fine.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/10/trump-defends-dictator-comments-amid-nyc-soiree-filled-with-extremists-maga-diehards-00130968
Now it is time to turn the tables on these actual crooks and lock them up for a change.
What's the problem? Actual criminals need to be prosecuted.
Pen and phone?
"THAT'S DIFFERENT!!!"
Also, somehow it's okay to use the justice department, state AGs and the FBI to prosecute your political opponent on frivolous and freshly invented charges in order to stop his election, but don't you dare plan to investigate it.
Prosecuting political enemies is only a dictatorship when the republicans do it. When democrats do it they are dEfEnDiNG dEmoCrAcY!
“Since I know the deep state is listening tonight, once President Trump is back in office, we won’t be playing nice anymore,” Wax said.“It will be a time for retribution. All those responsible for destroying our once-great country will be held to account after baseless years of investigations and government lies and media lies against this man,” he said. “Now it is time to turn the tables on these actual crooks and lock them up for a change.”
What is supposed to be wrong with retribution?
I am sure a creative prosecutor can bring up charges against the Cunt®™ (legally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton), Adam Schiff, and Robert Mueller.
“….extremist maga diehards.”
Soooo much nuance. Lol.
Trump said for one day he will be "a dictator" and by so doing he will close the border and reauthorize drilling, in other words, he will issue executive orders that undo some of Joe Biden's executive orders--exactly like Joe Biden issued executive orders on day one to reverse some of Trump's executive orders.
Other than those two things, which would be perfectly within the realm of his office, he did not indicate at all how he would be seeking "retribution " or to "abuse power".
If you're going to take him literally, then take him literally. ONE DAY, during which he says he will do these two things (which, in reality, are not dictator things). Don't twist his words to say that he said he would be a dictator from day one (and then continue to be one).
----------
“Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?” Hannity asked Trump in the interview taped in Davenport, Iowa on Tuesday.
“Except for day one,” Trump responded. Trump said on the “day one” he referred to, he would use his presidential powers to close the southern border with Mexico and expand oil drilling.
Trump then repeated his assertion. “I love this guy,” he said of the Fox News host. “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”
But if we're going to take people literally...
Biden Promises to Spend 'Billion 300 Million Trillion 300 Million Dollars' On Infrastructure
"Meanwhile, The New York Times still somehow managed to eke out a "Republicans pounce" headline as if that's the real story"
Be fair. The staff at the Times simply can't recognize when a liberal ally might be wrong, or put such words in print.
Wait until she sees what SNL tried to do with it over the weekend.
https://twitter.com/nbcsnl/status/1733780903254470931
Holy shit, I didn't get very far with that. I guess Saturday Night Live is still, literally, unwatchably bad.
Yeah, I couldn't make it through the first minute. Nothing even slightly amusing or even fucking original. It was comedy by algorithm.
I made it through two minutes, and may God have mercy on my soul.
Oh, I see the problem. Jeffy watches SNL and thinks that is what really happened.
...gun buyback programs aren't actually destroying the guns.
It's beautiful.
But not as beautiful as a plastic shopping bag caught in the wind.
I've given some thought to sitting outside a gun buyback to look for bargains. If the buyback is giving $100, I bet I could get some nice pieces for $125.
I've wondered...how can someone selling their firearm to a gun buyback is not a prohibited person. If I was selling a firearm in a private transaction, I'd assume that the buyer was a prohibited person until they can demonstrate otherwise, preferably by showing me their carry permit.
Al Gore says social media algorithms "are the digital equivalent of AR-15s."
The rhythms of Al Gore are worse than Hitler.
"To be able to say a gun is destroyed, disposal companies crush or cut up a single piece that federal law classifies as a firearm: the receiver or frame that anchors the other components and contains the required serial number," reports The New York Times in a big piece on how gun buyback programs aren't actually destroying the guns. "The businesses can then sell the remaining parts as a kit: barrel, trigger, grip, slide, stock, springs—essentially the entire gun, minus the regulated piece."
Better to include the gun owner in that crushing or cutting.
...the reorganisation of Argentina's government into just 9 ministries, down from 18 today...
They're going to double the size of the remaining agencies.
Gibson points to one study claiming that 90 percent of millennial women have taken nude pictures...
WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
On bidens hard drive
Nudity and sex acts are not the same thing.
A statue of David picture in a high school art book is the exact same thing as a rough, gay male anal intercourse video shown to second graders. Same thing!
“Oh my God. That’s disgusting! Naked pics online? Where? Where did he post those?”
“I don’t know, one of those disgusting ex-girlfriend porno sites?”
“Aw, one of those disgusting ex-girlfriend porno sites? I mean, there are so many of them though. Which one? Which one did he post them on?” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D17KwWDpoPU&ab_channel=PaulieIASIP
Romney’s “binders of women”?
'"If Hunter's last name was anything other than Biden, the charges in Delaware, and now California, would not have been brought," said Abbe Lowell, Biden's lawyer.'
Um, sure. More like, if Hunter's last name was not Biden, he would have been in prison or dead decades ago. But you have to love our "legal" system, with professional liars, er, advocates, and selective prosecution and punishment.
Possibly the softest piece I have seen in a long time...
Not from where I'm sitting. Hubba hubba.
Better late than never.
So, Zelensky is in town seeking aid for Ukraine from the Senate.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4353297-congress-to-do-list-final-week-2023-zelensky-impeachment-fisa/
I understand the position that the US should not be sending financial aid to Ukraine.
What I do not understand is the position that the US should not be supporting Ukraine *at all*, even in non-military or non-financial ways, or worse yet, taking Putin's side in the war.
Is Ukraine strategically important to US interests?
are the interests of the US state the same as my own?
Not that I am calling for war or anything, but if Venezuela goes through with it's invasion of Guana that has far more strategic interest to the US than Ukraine, however, I wouldn't advocate for us to get involved (let the Brazilians and Columbians sort it out). And if we did get involved (again, we shouldn't) it should be all or nothing. Limited military engagements are bullshit that just gets people killed without actually addressing what caused the war in the first place. We need to get out of the Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan model and get back to winning decisive and full victory. If that isn't possible than we shouldn't get involved, period.
Agreed, limited war seems to be a loser and seems to breed more wars. Either commit fully or don't. Although I have fewer problems with aiding the Guyanese than Ukraine, we should stay out at this point. Maybe monitor what's going on so it doesn't escalate to Venezuela wanting control of Trinidad & Tobago and the ABC islands.
As it stands right now, I expect this to go as badly for Venezuela as the Falklands did for Argentina. It's a dense, fairly impenetrable forested area, not really conducive to troop movements.
We’ll see what happens, but Venezuela’s military is largely built around preventing and putting down potential insurrections by its own people. It’s not designed for international conflict.
And if I'm Guyana, I'm begging Colombia to come to the rescue here, not the Americans.
Yeah, Columbians have nearly half a century fighting narco-terrorist in the jungle. Dealing with the Venezuelan military is likely to be a cake walk in comparison.
We need to get out of the Korea/Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan model and get back to winning decisive and full victory.
A-fucking-men
Are we to support everyone?
"What I do not understand is the position that the US should not be supporting Ukraine *at all*"
Yeah, that's pretty obvious. If you were libertarian or paying attention to the last decade in the region, you might get it.
Have we not supported them enough?
Are we, unbeknownst to us, allied with them?
And many actions of Ukraine kinda belies that they're on the side of freedom or democracy.
Vance on CNN made a really good point, "what will an additional $61 billion dollars accomplish that $100 billion dollars hasn't?" Even the leftist media is not admitting that Ukraine cannot achieve total victory and return to the 1991 borders and that their counteroffensive failed miserably and Ukraine can't hold on much longer.
As a start, can we get an accounting of where the first $100B went?
Had the US not been supporting the corrupt Bandera regime in Kiev, there would not be a mess like this.
Uh oh. Nuance Jeff started another post with, “So,…..”
And follows with typical nonsense.
One way to get people to stop criticizing your shitty coverage of the wars is to just cease covering the two most important stories in the world.
Where Reason has failed, 972 Magazine, Antiwar, and others are committed to covering the real shit. Maybe if Reason isn't too busy tomorrow, they could get back to work on the news.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12850383/Golden-Globes-nominations-2024.html
Golden Globes nominations 2024: Oppenheimer, Barbie and Killers of the Flower Moon dominate as Martin Scorsese, Margot Robbie and Leonardo DiCaprio are tipped for awards
Only one of those I saw was Oppenheimer, and it was so terrible that a quarter of the theater walked out before it was over. I have no idea why people keep raving about it.
Just because there wasn’t any tit action or car chase scenes doesn’t make it a bad movie.
Just because there wasn’t any tit action
Well....
Yeah, why was it terrible?
It seemed like there were several different stories going on that weren't really connected to each other. No flow to it. And like I said, a quarter of the theater walked out. I stayed to the bitter, boring end.
Better to just check out the book it was based on. It hits all the same notes and is more interesting overall, although you obviously don't get to see Florence Pugh's titties. So maybe that's a tradeoff.
Almost made him learn something. Longer than a bumper sticker.
You so remind me of Tony in that he contemptuously rejects simple explanations in favor of obfuscation.
I enjoyed Oppenheimer, I thought it did a reasonable job of showing a genius mind at work, and a very interesting event in US history. It also gave an indication of the extent of communist sympathy in the US, including Oppie himself.
I guess if it had a car chase or more sex, all those people wouldn't have walked out?
Didn’t see it yet. Did it go into his study of eastern religious texts like the Baghavad Vita?
religious texts like the Baghavad Vita
Livin' La Vita Yoga?
I found it to be disjointed and chaotic. To each their own I guess. I also thought Joker was terrible, and many people loved that movie.
The issue with Joker is that a lot of people completely missed the point. It's a movie about mental illness and how it tears an otherwise sympathetic person apart, set against a time period when the US looked it was going to complete shit as epitomized by the NYC garbage strike--IOW, a modern-day "Taxi Driver."
Phillips really just put the capeshit part on there as a type of video game skin just to get the movie made, but it's really irrelevant to the story itself.
Yeah, that and the “Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair” take on not throwing unlimited “funding” at mental health bureaucracy.
Killers of the Flower Moon was a fucking slog, too. I get that Scorsese's at a stage where he can just say "fuck it" and make what he wants, but something like that should have been done as a mini-series. The damn thing's over 3 hours long and I lost interest about halfway through.
At least give people an intermission or something, goddamn. We had one when "Gettysburg" was released in the theaters back in 1993, and it made the viewing process so much easier.
You don’t give Oppenheimer a glowing review?
Oxford commas are your friends, though Barbie and the Killers of the Flower Moon would have been an awesome movie.
Next band name.
Huh. So just like the War on Drugs, the War on Migration winds up depriving law-abiding people of their liberties and livelihoods as collateral damage. This time, in order to fight the "border crisis", a legal border crossing is closed, leading to hardship for those making an honest living on legal cross-border traffic.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/us/immigration-southern-border-arizona-mexico-biden.html
Just another thing Biden fucked up.
"leading to hardship for those making an honest living on legal cross-border traffic."
Hahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahha... what the fuck, Jeffy...
So just like the War on Drugs, the War on Migration winds up depriving law-abiding people of their liberties and livelihoods as collateral damage.
Immigrants are bad, m'kay?
the real criminal here is the government that makes it illegal to build more, cheaper housing
How much housing has to be built so it is affordable to a jobless drug addict living in a donated tent?
When a good is free, the demand is infinite.
"Possibly the softest piece I have seen in a long time"
You're fuckin' ten-ply, bud.
Give your balls a tug,
"In inaugural speech, Argentina's Javier Milei prepares nation for painful shock adjustment"
[...]
"BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — It wasn't the most uplifting of inaugural addresses. Rather, Argentina's newly empowered President Javier Milei presented figures to lay bare the scope of the nation's economic “emergency,” and sought to prepare the public for a shock adjustment with drastic public spending cuts.
Milei said in his address to thousands of supporters in the capital, Buenos Aires, that the country doesn't have time to consider other alternatives.
“We don’t have margin for sterile discussions. Our country demands action, and immediate action," he said. "The political class left the country at the brink of its biggest crisis in history. We don’t desire the hard decisions that will need to be made in coming weeks, but lamentably they didn't leave us any option.”..."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/in-inaugural-speech-argentinas-javier-milei-prepares-nation-for-painful-shock-adjustment/ar-AA1lgBxO
Don't we wish...
Al Gore says social media algorithms "are the digital equivalent of AR-15s.
Al Gore is and always has been a moron.
Not totally. According to Jeff above, Gore made a good point about social media and collective reasoning.
only Mike can determine whether Jeff's opinion piece can be cited as fact.
"...According to Jeff above,..."
Assertions from lefty shits =/= evidence or argument.
Seconded.
tomato:tomahto::"digital equivalent of AR-15s":"Potatoe"
If algorithms are the digital equivalent to AR-15s, then what are the AR-15s in FPS games? Carbon footprint reducers?
The fact that Hunter Biden isn't already in prison being regularly sodomized by his superiors is proof the system is broken.
Gibson points to one study claiming that 90 percent of millennial women have taken nude pictures, and attempts to draw a close comparison to her own quite different conduct.
And remember kids, this is the generation that thinks boobies in movies is exploitation, a symptom of The Male Gaze and is unnecessary, gratuitous display of sex.
And remember kids, this is the generation that thinks boobies in movies is exploitation, a symptom of The Male Gaze and is unnecessary, gratuitous display of sex.
Except for when it's brave and empowering.
"But everybody else was doing it!" - Millennial-aged Girl
She walked into the cafe,
with her iPhone aglow,
Hashtagging all the lattes,
like it's a fashion show.
Gucci bags and thrift store finds,
swiping 'round the Tinder whirl,
She's the self-proclaimed queen
of the digital world.
And I'll search the web over
For my angel to fap
Yeah, I'll search the web over
For a Millennial-aged Girl
Millennial-aged Girl, Millennial-aged Girl
Millennial-aged Girl, my Millennial-aged Girl
Yeah, I'll search the web over
For my angel to fap
Yeah, I'll search the web over
For a Millennial-aged Girl
Is this the updated version of J Geils "Angel is a centerfold"?
>>Libertarian hero?
I've never had to pay for chicks so that doesn't make me root for HB but the taxation is theft stance is a plus.
>>Possibly the softest piece I have seen in a long time
didn't see it but I hear Mr. Gibson is quick with his.
They said it couldn't be done: "On Sunday afternoon [Javier] Milei signed a presidential emergency decree mandating the reorganisation of Argentina's government into just 9 ministries, down from 18 today," per Financial Times.
This guy is so great. We need one like him in the white house for sure.
"Escape Liberal Hell": Oregon, Washington Republicans Flee PNW, Join California Conservatives In Idaho
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/escape-liberal-hell-oregon-washington-republicans-flee-pnw-join-california-conservatives
The call to "Escape liberal hell," as echoed by a Boise, Idaho real estate agent, is not just a catchy sales pitch but a sign of the times. Idaho's voter database sheds light on this great political migration. Approximately 119,000 voters have moved to Idaho in recent years, with a staggering 65% registering as Republicans—a figure that overshadows the state's already GOP-leaning demographic of 58%.
They may be registered GOP's but they are still Californians.
Yeah, that's actually a big problem with them, too--they think that Idaho conservatives are let-it-all-hang-out rah-rah flag wavers, when the reality is that they're "shut the fuck up and go the fuck away" types. And a large chunk of those people are Mormon, as well, and Californians aren't well-equipped to deal with that without subverting the established culture, because a lot them are still pretentious wine-and-cheese assholes.
And there is a big difference between Panhandle conservatives (fuck the government, libertarian leaning, more than a few pot smoking ex hippie type conservatives) and the south Idaho (or northern Utah if you like) conservatives (law and order, government worshipping largely LDS types). Of course this is a generalization and there are a bit of both types in both geographical areas, but it's more true than not.
My personal experiences with conservative Californians have been a mixed bag. Generally speaking, they lived in Cali long enough to accept a lot of the culture without realizing it opposes real liberty. One example is guns sold at garage sales or in the local classifieds. They also tend to be the one complaining about the trashy neighbor with the 17 cars, two tractors, a collapsing RV, and misc other shit.
The tell is they are the ones with the "7B" decals in back window of the lifted truck.
The trucks you only see in the summertime? And generally either in Sandpoint or Priest Lake? And they disappear come the first snow?
Exactly them.
A California conservative is more like a European conservative--not really conservative, but likes tax cuts and isn't necessarily down with cutting their kid's genitals off.
Liz Magill, who served as president of the University of Pennsylvania for less than two years, just resigned following pressure from the board and a dicey congressional hearing in which her answers regarding free speech and antisemitism on campus were deemed unsatisfactory.
Finally, one of the colleges is taking a positive stand for free speech!
Oh, wait, you mean she was fired because she didn't censor ENOUGH speech? Nevermind. Fucking death spiral. I hope Ms Stefanik is proud of herself.
Was UPenn a bastion of free speech before?
Did it permit pro-Communist or pro-Nazi rallies in the past?
Did it tolerate microaggressions or misgendering?
She was fired because of her pathetic showing in the congressional hearing. She was clearly not up to the task of hiding or obfuscating the clear hypocrisy of the university, nor to deflect and redirect away from it. These are key traits desired in any university administrator, much less the president.
She was fired because she refused to say that Anti-Semitism is not tolerated, and that some statements supporting Palestine did not necessarily violate the University's speech code. This upset people not because Penn is stifling too much speech, but because it's not cracking down on this specific type of speech.
What got her in trouble was failing to protect Jews, not being a hypocrite. She was fired for failing to purge Anti-Semitism, not for censoring too much speech. This actually narrows the amount of free expression allowed, not expands it.
No, the hypocrisy was central to her firing. If her university hadn't spent the better part of two decades ruthlessly suppressing speech, then her defense of the speech in question would have sounded like a defense of free speech rather than a defense of antisemitic speech.
It isn't free speech if you have different rules for different speech. UPenn set the precedence that certain speech was hateful and actual violence and therefore could be banned. They then went and decided in this case that didn't apply. Selective support for free speech is no support for free speech.
The only explanation is Judenhass.
She was fired because today's leftist belief that Jews are White is at odds with yesterday's leftist belief that they're not. The speech to be censored is otherwise the same.
Exactly. It's still in service to the keystone belief in academia that all white people are devils.
Keystone. UPenn. I hope that was intentional.
She wasn't fired, merely "demoted to tenured professor at the UPenn law school," a rather lucrative sinecure. Yeah, sucks to be her.
"reports The New York Times in a big piece on how gun buyback programs aren't actually destroying the guns. "The businesses can then sell the remaining parts as a kit: barrel, trigger, grip, slide, stock, springs—essentially the entire gun, minus the regulated piece.""
If the NYT knew what it was talking about, it would know that for most guns, the part that is serialized *is really important to the function of the gun*. If you destroyed the grip module of the pistol sitting on the desk next to me it would be extremely difficult to replace and then rebuild the gun even if I kept the remaining parts.
Outside of the AR-15 and Glock gen3's (thank's to the widespread availability of Glock 80% grip modules - and this only applies to gen 3's) if you had the skills to rebuild the gun with the parts kit you had the ability to build the gun *without* the parts kit.
Wonder if the NYT is going to freak out next that the "destroyed parts" are recycled for their metal and some of that metal is used to 'gasp' make new guns.
The funny thing is, this isn't unique to the frame or even guns.
That is, if the barrel were serialized and you destroyed a barrel, unless you could machine your own barrel, you wouldn't have a gun, you'd just have an organized set of replacement parts for some other gun. Same thing with a car's transmission, engine block, or even things like tie rods and wheels. If they serialized all the wheels and you lost one of four wheels, unless you could machine your own, you don't have a car, you have an organized set of replacement parts for some other car.
Insane animist thinking where 1.01 guns = 2 guns.
At least for AR-style guns, many people can and do machine their own receivers.
HTF! do you have an apartment that rents for 20k/mo?
My question is why would you pay that? If you can afford to pay that much, wouldn't it make more sense to buy?
If you are that rich and as disconnected from reality as a progressive media mogul, lawyer, or politician, you don't want to own your home. If the toilet stops up, you want to just call the landlord and have _them_ call the plumber, because you wouldn't even know how to talk to a guy that works with his hands. And for $20,000 a month, I'll bet that landlord is going to act fast and spare no expense.