After the “debate”, there has been a backlash against Donald Trump.  I haven’t seen any new poll’s yet but wouldn’t be surprised at any gains or losses.  We here at SUFA are frustrated with the low information voters.  I think Trump, FOX and most that we watch are playing to that vast audience.  Mitt Romney won his debates with Obama if truth and accuracy were the criteria used to judge.  But he lost in the real world where playing a crowd and selling a lie can determine the winner.  An article at AT caught my attention.  The author is disappointed  with FOX’s low tactics.

Millions of conservatives were looking forward to the GOP debate like kids waiting for a new Avengers film.  Sick to death of leftist moderators going after Republican candidates with malicious intent, this debate was going to be different.  With the moderators being from Fox, this debate would be classy and substantive.  There would be none of Stephanopoulos’s trick questions meant to destroy, like when he asked Romney if he thought birth control should be legal.  Chris Wallace has a lefty bent and, like his father, can be quite arrogant, but Bret Baier is one of the best in the business.  And Megyn Kelly, whom we’ve watched since she was Megyn Kendall, is usually incisive and elegant.

Our fantasy was not to be.  Right out of the box, Kelly asked Trump a lowbrow question that belied someone’s many hours of opposition research.  The tone was instantly set.  This debate was going to be like a tacky reality show, unworthy of the candidates, with the possible exception of Trump.  Fox was going to take out Trump with glee while 24 million people watched.  They were so proud, and they stooped to his level to do it.  Rather than let him betray his own ignorance on legitimate topics, like how he would actually secure the border or how he would fix health care or his knowledge of the Constitution, they went for the low-info voter, trigger-warning crowd with a question about name-calling. 

The whole fiasco was pathetic.  Fox News fell from its lofty aerie on Thursday night into the Neverland of degenerate gotcha politics.

There is not much I disagree with there, but what happens later when a Republican faces a Democrat?  Whether it’s Megyn Kelly or George Stephanopoulos asking Trump wife-beating questions, the questions will be asked.  The real issue should be how he responds.  I think he did poorly.  Better answers like, “what did Rosie say to and about me and compare my response.  You can’t even repeat her language.  Take my other words in context.  Do I say some over the top things on a reality TV show?  Maybe.  Maybe there is a reason it’s so highly rated.  When I’m there I’m doing a job.  I’m being me but I’m expected to have an impact.”  But he didn’t say anything like that.  Instead he took shots at the moderators.  I don’t think it played well, but the one statement on political correctness scored well and for the masses, that may be all they heard.
A couple of day ago, I was talking with some friends.  My objections to Trump his past statements on staying in Iraq and keeping their oil, building a wall and making Mexico pay for it.  A Trump fan spoke up and mostly shouted “Trump was right.  “After the towers fell, after Iraq attacked us, we should have stayed and kept their oil.”  My response, none of the hijackers were from Iraq, 17 were from Saudi Arabia and the were based in Afghanistan, which was why we invaded them.  “On Mexico, I think Trump is right there too, they should have to pay after all the expenses we have to pay when they come here illegally.”  So you want a war with Mexico?  No, why?  How are you and Trump going to make Mexico pay for this wall? “ I don’t know but I think Trump has a plan and I want to hear it but think he’s right.”
I think the debates are simply a reality TV show.  They are not intended to allow us to choose our best candidate.  They act like it’s to inform us but carefully prevent us from being informed.  I would want each candidate to answer each question.  What would you do about the situation in Iraq & Syria with ISIS/ISIL?
What would you do about the situation in the South China Sea with China looking to claim contested territory?
What would you do about the situation in the arctic with Russia now claiming treaty protected, international territory?
Gun control?
But it’s all just a media circus.  The winner will be who puts on the best act.


  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Seems like each new article is a new beginning 🙂

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I personally like the campaign method refined by McKinley during the 1890’s. Stay at home and the people come to you. The message was controlled and got out to the masses very quickly through the media and the people when they returned to their homes..

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The media has BECOME the problem in many cases. While I fully agree with a free press, when one or more start telling lies, like in the George Zimmerman 911 tapes (changing the content of 911 call to make a claim of racism) which sparks much bigger problems, like riots, looting or simply ruining one’s life, they should be held to account, and seriously. This doesn’t require a law, social media has become powerful enough to shut the bad media down. MSNBC is a prime example, few people watch. Pierc Morgan lost his CNN gig because of his insane anti-gun BS. It can be done quicker if people would tweet the truth faster to shutdown bad media.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        The media in whatever form has been a serious issue since long before the Civil War. During the war Horace Greeley was undescribable as his papers went. Thew guy didn’t have a backbone and went all over the map with his much read opinions. The national politics today are tame compared to times like the 1880’s. I’m sure everyone here has heard of the “Yellow Press” most notibly lead by the great Hearst. Drumming the country into wars. So false flags are nothing new. The NYT absolutely lying about racial riots and deaths in Wilmington NC. The very minor confrontations were a direct result of the press lies. Reported 1000’s of bodies floating down the Fear River, when in reality <20 died. But the leaders in Wilmington of both the whites and blacks were confused. Because they had for generations gotten along and the Carolina coastal cities had long had a free black and business class. As it turns out it was the politically dispossessed planters that wanted to break the political joining of the blacks, poor white farmers and "republicans". The damage was done inspite of Wilmingtons best efforts and the Jim Crow laws were instituted by the "New" democrat political leaders in Raleigh. Copying South Carolina's lead. As bad as the free press is and government controlled totally for information is worse. Pre radio there usually in large cities there were multiple papers. Differing opinions and were printed usually 2X a day. Now with radio, TV and the internet and the government controlling the licensing of the 1st two at anytime they can control the output. The internet the government is absolutely trying to gain control of that and are coming close with the new FCC rulings,

        I'll even go out on a limb and say what some here suspect that FOX caved to DOJ pressure to avoid prosecution from events stemming from English legal cases.

    • Unarmedblackteenager, cecilthebelovelion.

  2. Sorry, but BF rant #132.
    Who cares about federal politics? It’s all empty nonsense.

    • Almost everyone else, you even care enough about it to warn people to ignore it 🙂

      • Yes, everyone cares, but its like caring if the sun will have a new sunspot or not, as if caring can change it one way or another. It is pointless and a total waste of mental energy.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          A good thing about SUFA is we can talk about anything. Politics is but one subject in a long list of subjects, including just talking about personal beliefs and old memories. There have been some very educational discussions and some very entertaining ones. You and I have made our points on Federal politics known 🙂

    • writeforthemasses cares, they “liked” me. See above….

      • Oh, that is no surprise. The masses like Kim Kardasian too and follow her every breast wiggle. It is merely a sign the masses are easily distracted away from doing what is important (and usually hard) into doing pointless nonsense (which is usually easy).

        • Once ruling hierarchies get beyond a certain point, they cannot be reformed. And I am sure that the modern West is beyond that point.

          Do we really believe that central bankers will just lay down their monopolies?

          Can we seriously expect a hundred trillion dollars of debt to be liquidated without any consequences?

          Do we actually believe that politicians will walk away from their power and apologize for abusing us?

          Do we really think that the corporations who own Congress will just give up the game that is enriching them?

          Does anyone seriously believe that the NSA is going to say, “Gee, that Fourth Amendment really is kind of clear, and everything we do violates it… so, everyone here is fired and the last person out will please turn off the lights”?

          And does anyone believe that the military-industrial complex will stop encouraging war, or that corporate media will stop worshiping the state, or that your local sheriff will apologize for training his cops to be viscous beasts?

          Do we really believe that public school systems will ever stop lauding the state that pays all its bills?

          I could go on, but I think my point is made: This system will never allow itself to be seriously reformed. Trying to fix this is like trying to revive a long-dead corpse.

          The systems that rule the West will fail.

          Whether the wider Western civilization fails is up to us: Do we have civilization inside of us? Or was it all just a pattern that we followed?

          I think an honest look around is all we really need to assess this situation – and I’m really not trying to play the “doomer” here – but a few bits of support seem to be in order. So, I’ll start with a quote from a man named Salvian, who lived in the Roman Empire a bit before 460 AD:

          Nobody thought of the state’s expenses, nobody thought of the state’s losses, because the cost was not felt. The state itself sought how it might squander what it was already scarcely able to acquire. The heaping up of wealth which had already exceeded its limit was overflowing even into trifling matters.

          Does this sound vaguely familiar? Salvian continues:

          But what can be said of the present-day situation? That old abundances have gone from us. The resources of former times have gone. We are already poverty-stricken, yet we do not cease to be spendthrift.

          Here’s another from Salvian:

          The state has fallen upon such evil days that a man cannot be safe unless he is wicked.

          With this last passage in mind, please consider Jon Corzine, Lois Lerner, and Hillary Clinton.

          Then think about Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning.

          Who among these six told the truth? And who among them lied? Which have suffered for their actions? Which have not?

          And what of the British elites who seem devoted to chasing underage girls? When do they go to jail?

          Shall we really keep pretending that these systems have anything to do with righteousness? At some point, doesn’t that become embarrassing?

          As I’ve written before, I’ve seen, over my decades, well-meaning people who tried very hard to reform the system and to make life better. And now, the very same problems they were devoted to solving are the problems de jour: war, poverty, welfare, racism, and police brutality – the very same list!

          50 years of their efforts were fully wasted. Shall we really continue the waste? At some point, doesn’t patting ourselves on the back for accomplishing nothing become ridiculous?

          Even If… I think it’s very important to make this last point clearly:

          Even if this system doesn’t crash for another century, everything done within it is a waste.

          The decent people of Earth deserve better than this barbarity… much better.

          It is fully corrupt, from top to bottom, and I don’t believe there are any “good guys” inside, waiting for “the right time.” It is OVER.

          I withdraw. I forsake them. I refuse to waste my energy on their politics. Humanity deserves better and I aim to do my part in building it.

          I will shed no tears when this system finally collapses – it will be a liberation.

          From here on, you should be trying to build new things and will have nothing to do with the old.

          The good and productive people of this world deserve something better than the abusive dominators that seek to control their every move, and we are more than capable of building it. But we have to stop waiting for permission from the lords of the status quo – they will never give us permission to bypass their domination.

          We have to make our own decisions and simply start building something better. We are able, and this system is unworthy of our efforts.

          Now would be a very good time to start.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Nice speech….I’m sure you noticed that Diane Feintein could find nothing wrong with the NSA, because of it’s greater good…that is until she found out they snooped on her. And then nothing happened. The government was pissed at Assange, Snowden and Manning because they published the governments dirty illegal activity. Most people just shrugged off the problem by saying, I’ve done nothing wrong so it doesn’t bother me, or they will do what they want anyway so why get upset. Except just look at all the people having their assets seized without cause and never charged and then the government offers only a token amount back or nothing knowing that it will cost more for the people to sue than they’ll get back. Or recording officials during the commission of a crime and being arrested for doing so.

            Here’s an article….what liability does the court bear in this case. In this case the dept of social service did their job in ’07. The courts returned the children to the same parents in ’10. The people had more kids and again the state takes the children with one twist. The neglectful parents are sent to prison by the court.


            The roach is a bit gross, but saying the children were underweight, based on what standard and isn’t the FDA and the CDC and Michelle complaining that children are more overweight and obese than ever before and need to loose weight.

            • And there is the rest of the world……… better off. No other place to retreat to…..We are humans and, therefore, not perfect. What is the answer? “It is only what you make the answer be”…( a quote from my Montgnard counterpart…when we talked about their future which was…no future )

          • Excellent post…

  3. Funny, so much attention shown to Trumps pretty much childish insults but they don’t even compare to the nasty remarks I read everyday in the news. I’ve heard many politicians say very hateful things in a more, lets say polished, general way-then after setting the ground work, they set back and let their organizations and internet bull dogs carry out the real nasty individual attacks.

  4. Trump is a shill. I’ve only heard two candidates speak of the need to reduce the size of government. Those two I’d like to see in the White House. Unfortunately neither stand a chance.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      A little voice is whispering that Trump may be a left Wing plant to get Hiltlery elected. But it’s only a whisper 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Then again, another little whisper says there may not be an election.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I also have had a little whisper that says I will bag a 12 point buck each year, still waiting 🙂

    • I’ve heard the whispers. They tell me there are medications for that. I stand by my gut feeling, which is no election. Or a Clinton vs Bush election……which is no election.

    • I agree Rick. Might compare him to a right wing version of Obama. The thing is in all his past deals, he did what was best for Trump. He made money after each of his four bankruptcies… Is he going to do a better job than Obama/Hillary? Absolutely! But you could say the same about nearly anyone including the socialist Bernie Sanders….

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        In all cases whether one wants a socialistic or a capitalistic country to have either be successful one needs a strong economy. Kill that in whatever way will lead to a fall in either one.

        • True. I think socialist are more prone to run out of other peoples money.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            ONLY if those with money have a place to run and hide. This is why the socialists MUST convert the USA. It is why they detest “states rights”.

            No place to hide and they will have their way with us all.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            That is so true because in most cases socialist/communist/progressive societies kill the incentives that will enable them to actually provide the needed services they deem nesseccary. For the most part the people will care for themselves, if allowed to, therefore less need. So the government is like a perpetual motion machine or dog chasing its tail. It creates, either in reality or fiction a problem, and then in it intent to solve the problem actually exaserbated it, creating a bigger problem.

            Just last night I was reading about political campaign styles and affectivness. In one they wrote about the “depression” and its advent in ’32. Sure the crash occured in ’29 and there had to be adjustments made to the economy, but Hoover felt in many ways it was not the governments role. However, by stating the depression really took hold in ’32 was Roosevelt and his continual messing caused the depression because nobody had any clue where the government was heading and withheld investing. That is a generalization by holds pretty true. Later the claim is in other “historical” text the Roosevelt ended the depression. Hah…we were in it just as deep when WWII broke out. The government even though they believed in Keynsian economics just could NOT spend the money they wanted to, in lieu of private investment. The war cured that by being an “emergency” the unlimited spending really took off. Not only remove more people from the workforce after the SSA and retirement was enacted but another 6-8 million into the “non” productive military. The military produces nothing and just consumes.

            I’ll go back to my comments about Nanking from the last chapter. The Chinese and Koreans were and are resentful of what Japan did to them. However, the world during the ’30’s really didn’t give a gnats ass about the massacres. In fact the League of Nations went after China for defending itself against the Japanese after they invaded Nanking. Heck, foreign countries militaries patrolled China including the US. Sound familiar. Libya and Syria. defending itself and by doing so enraged the west and UN.

      • Regarding the four bankruptcies, Megan wanted to make a big deal out of all that. Point is the guy never had personal bankruptcy. He has done several hundred deals, four fell flat. That is not a bad batting average.

        She also went on about the casino’s in Atlantic City. Don’t know if any of you guys caught “Boardwalk Empire” on HBO but things have not changed much. AC could have been a contenda! Could have been Las Vegas East. Should have been Las Vegas East. The corruption prevented that from happening. Too much of a Golden Goose.

        The place was supposed to have become a multi-faceted venue but never got beyond the casinos. Since the new politics seems to be allow gambling anywhere, it was just a matter of time till the surrounding States jumped in, NY, Delaware, Conn, PA. With gambling being the only attraction, there just were not enough Chinese on the East coast to keep the place afloat.

        Trump wisely started selling off chunks of the gambling empire basically retaining I believe only 10% interest. To show you how bad things are. They completed a new casino/hotel a few years back, The Revel. This was the big one! Huge place, top of the line hotel facilities, big name acts in the Theater …….It went bust in a year. At the bankruptcy sale the top bid was .05 cents on the dollar. A judge later overturned the sale because it was such a farce.

        I will quote the old man on gambling, a guy who bet a quarter on the numbers every day of his life, (736).

        “Gambling is merely another tax on the poor.”

        • Megan needs to shut up…..bankruptcy laws were put in to do nothing but make people rich….even with the changes made today….it is still a useful tool. Venture capitalist, corporate raiders…..use it constantly. The changes that were made hurt only the little guy….the larger can still cope with it just fine. It is not even a blight on a record anymore…..

          • Disagree. I think she should keep on talking, as should any and everyone that can get others to listen. Might should change her name to Megan Fox Kardashian…. She doesn’t identify herself as a journalist, so we can all agree with her about one thing.

            • Talking about what, bruh? If she wants to continue beating the drum about corrupt government, then fine. This particular beef is about Trump, specifically bankruptcies. There’s really no there there. He defends every claim on him without shame. Still nothing sticks to knock him down. You guys just don’t like him personally, which is cool too. Doesn’t mean he’s not capable. There never was or will be a perfect candidate. Think Reagan. Same origins, Democrats. Same origins, not politicians. Very well could be same outcomes. We just don’t know. What we know is that status quo got us here.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I wish it were possible that the election of one person could change the corrupt culture in politics. But, it is refreshing to see and hear what needs to be said and done, something Trump has done well. He is beating the PC crowd, and doing so without apology. The Liberals in both parties hate him and many establishment (fake) conservatives want him to go away, but are afraid to do anything because of his threat to go 3rd Party. Smart move on his part. The Liberal’s on the Right are showing their true colors, so pay attention and see who is simply establishment puppets. A good article:

  5. gmanfortruth says:
    • Ya know Gman…..all the politicos, all the King’s men, all the pundits…complain and complain…all the anarchist complain and complain…all the nay sayers all jump on the US as if they were the ones that invented evil……..

      But… one……has offered a better place to go.

      • Yes there is, Hitler’s Wolkenkuckkucksheim!

      • There is no place to go. But there are things to do.

        As with all politics, change occurs when one stops doing “this”, and chooses to do “that”.

        What most want is a snap-of-the-finger fix. It doesn’t exist.
        It took centuries to get here, and it will take a long time to change, but the change starts first with the individual, then progresses ever larger.

        The tactic of withdrawal, personal withdrawal, is always the first step.
        Stop supporting the State.
        Stop mucking about within its confines.
        Stop supporting the political machine.
        Stop supporting politicians.
        Do not define one’s self as “Rep” “Dem”.
        Stop group think.
        Stop labeling yourself and others, creating class conflict.

        First one must stop before one changes course.

        • Agreed there are things to do……but change is purely subjective…your change is most likely different than my change.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          With all due respect, your list is ridiculous because it does not affect the heart of Govt.

          You cannot withdraw without penalty of prison and ruin. The politicians do not care if you do not vote.

          All that matters is that they can continue to COLLECT TAXES.

          Try to withdraw from that and see what happens.

          I do agree that if we stop trying to alienate everyone into groups it might help reduce tensions. But how is ignoring the reality that Socialists and Fascist Progressives live among us going to help create “civilization”??

          I would rather alienate the evil and then focus on helping the rest. That requires “judging” those around us and acting accordingly.

          • Oops, sorry JAC. We were probably typing at the same time, this machine is slooooow!

            • Just A Citizen says:


              No worries my dear. I was pretty sure you were not accusing me of feeling like a loser.

              However, we should not dismiss BF’s comments out of hand. There is some wisdom but I also some lack of clarity and practicality.

              I thought his “focus on local” much more feasible and affective.

              One key question. How can it collapse when the whole world is the same?? I do not think it will collapse. I think it will just get sicker and sicker and the vast majority will think it normal.

              Think what our grandparents would say if faced with the “cost” of things today compared to their times. They would declare our system “broken” and “in collapse”. Yet we go on with the perception we are richer than ever.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                except they, during, their entire lives carried NO, ZERO, NADA, ZIP personal debt. Even up until the last couple years of one of my Grandmother’s life, 102 years, was her entire care taken care of by her own assets. And at that time the extra expences were covered by my parents. They grew up in a time that you got nothing unless you worked for it. If what you wanted was beyond reach at the time, either you stopped wanting or you saved unless you could pay cash.

                What is strange though, all of my grandparents lived long lives and NONE had prolonged lives due to sucking on Medicares or insurances tit. They actually were quite healthy. Now the interesting thing is my parents generation who lived their entire lives with unlimited health insurance and care are passing on in most cases a full decade if not two before their parents did. The children are having problems and dying even earlier, mostly cancers.

          • JAC
            What you fail to realize is 1) nothing effects the heart of government and 2) nothing need to be done about it. It will crumble all by itself.

            One must get out from under it, or be crushed too. If you are dependent on government for any part of your life, you’re in trouble. So you have to not be dependent on government, now. After it collapses, it will be too late. You will be merely one of millions in desperation.

            That is what they said about Rome too, it can’t collapse. But it did. It is merely wishful thinking, or the inability to know what will follow that makes one think “this can’t stop”.

            But things that cannot go on have a tendency to stop, as the saying goes.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              If your premise is that nothing can affect the heart of Govt. then collapse will do nothing to RESET either. Furthermore, I do not think it will collapse. It will simply change from one set of players to another, or the same players with a new ideology or policy agenda. I do not see a time without Govt,, ever. The number of us who can live in places where a Govt. cannot reach us is very limited. Galt’s Gulch does not exist, unfortunately.

              Now to the margins. It is possible to change Govt. Even our Federal Bureaucracy of today. To say it cannot change is false. But to believe it can be changed by ONE President in a single or two terms is equally false. One POTUS can cause some major changes but without a broader support those changes will be temporary or reduced in the long term.

              But the real problem is not those that “own” Govt. or those who play in it. It is the people who look to it and believe in it. The reason change cannot last is the mind set of the PEOPLE. Thus my long made argument about changing the Philosophical BASE of the people FIRST. All actions to “fix” Govt. before then should be viewed as holding actions, the goal being to slow the rot not necessarily reverse it for good. Because until most of the people come around there is no chance of success. Even if it collapses, those same people will once again condemn and look to Govt. to save them. And it will grow once again, more powerful and more evil. Because there is nothing like a crisis to expand Govt. power.

              Your caution to get out from under Govt. in itself makes little sense given the size and scope of the beasts reach. This statement does make much more sense however: “So you have to not be dependent on government, now.” This I can get behind. Not just for individuals but for smaller Govt. units, such as towns and cities, counties and perhaps a State or two.

              But I see this as not quite the same as “getting our from under”, so maybe our difference of opinion is partly in the meaning of the words you chose.

              Now lets address the millions living in cities. It is pretty hard to see how they escape being dependent upon Govt. Even if they try to break all ties with the Fed and go local, they will not be able to keep their “life styles”. This will force them to immediately run back to the Federal for help.

              • “If you premise that nothing can affect the heart of Govt. then collapse will do nothing to RESET either. Because Govt. will not collapse”

                Of course it does.

                You are no different then a man, a few hundred years ago, aghast at the claim that a man can pray to God without a Pope, or the church wouldn’t be the center of society.

                I not “disappear”, but it will be relegated to the fringe, just like the church, and will die a lingering slow death, just like the church.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              BF, and SUFA………… about timely. A sober look at the role Govt has played in our LIFE STYLES and why changing the PEOPLE is key to ever changing the irrational behavior.


              Here is the million or should I say Gazillion Dollar question. If the entire world is playing the same game, how will it ever collapse? Will it not go on forever with INFLATION creating both the illusion of wealth for the masses and the reality of poverty for those locked into the bottom economic groups?

              If every player in the world is printing money to prop up the sense of wealth and keep people working, where does it stop? I see a future where the $20 bill is taken out of circulation because it has become as worthless as the “penny” has today.

              • If the entire world is playing the game……then there are no rules…it becomes survival of the fittest….as it should be. There is no such thing as equality in a real world. ……it is only in the mind of the weak.

        • Stop allowing Black Flag to make you think you’re a loser because you cannot accomplish his first two goals.

          I’m pretty safe saying I’ve already accomplished the others. Go ahead, already know what’s coming at me.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        D13, it begins by saying NO loudly and clearly. Tell those who support the establishment to pound sand. Tell the establishment to pound sand. When they fight bsck, tell the to read the Damon Constitution and force the Fed’s to abide by it. If that don’t work, which it wont, then a day will come when they are all removed by force, which is now long overdue.

        • But by your own admission, you cannot force the Fed to do anything…..I have said no, and I constantly tell them to beat you proverbial sand into submission…but, just like you and BF….I still conform to those rules that require attending.

  6. Speaking of business…anyone want to join me in organizing a black market gun running operation in Seattle?

    • All the speaking of courts over-ruling……hogwash…..a city can pass stricter laws if it wishes.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Not in Washington State. The threatened law suit is over violation of STATE law.

        Interesting, however, that the City Council has taken John Robert’s BS ruling on Obama Care to their own use. Claiming it is “just a tax” and not really a law to regulate guns.

        I doubt they can show any connection between their proposed “safety research” and “education” and reduced violence. But the shop owners are correct. The goal is to get them out of the city.

  7. I have not seen Clinton’s excise tax proposal on here yet…..heard about it but have not seen it. The excise tax on health care insurance. The purpose for the excise tax….to pay for Obama care….does anyone see the hypocrisy in this?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Of course…Robert’s rules Obamacare is Constitutional because, just look at it like a tax. So people are force by threat of violence to purchase insurance, prohibitive in costs. And then she wants to tax the tax, ie excise tax. The only way to drive the costs down is for the people to actually say NO, I will not pay it…my risk. Nobody will be hurt except me. Insurance in a way actually paves the way for carelessness and a worse lifestyle. Have an accident…oh insurance will take care of it. Not take care of youself…Oh insurance will take care of it. If one had to eat the expense at the time of the accident or illness you’d be much more aware.

      In Italy back in the 70’s drinking and driving and having any sort of accident…you became personally liable and insurance was null and void. You not only paid for your own damages to the vehicle and body, but all damages to the other person. Drinking and driving was virtually unheard of.

      In England the general population is disarmed. However, the criminals just switched methods and now use knives. oh and if you dare to defend youself you are prosecuted. So in reality if you resist the threat of the thug and cause injury to yourself is it not like you are attempting suicide and potentially causing harm to yourself, and that is in itself a criminal offense.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    Real life can be so much fun………..ROTFLMAO…………OH God the irony is simply to much to bear without breaking out in hysterics. My face hurts from laughing so hard.

  9. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Interesting policy move by Amnesty International. The organization has approved a policy advocating the “de-criminalization” of consensual sex for money. The women’s rights groups are livid with rage.

    On one hand the women’s group say that a womens body is her’s and nobody can tell her what she can or can not do with it,…ie abortion. So why not all the way freedom. What they are afraid of is the loosening of the criminal ties they’ve gotten enacted to keep the men from straying. Uh ball and chain come to mind. Damned if you do and damned it you don’t. Either way you will get chained quite literally .

    Many of these groups also say a women does not get fair pay for the services they provided at home free of charge.

    As long as safe sex is practiced and nothing is coerced ie slavery and is in fact consentual what’s the harm. Nevada does OK.

    What the womens right group deny is that they want it both ways. Control the men and live off the fat. This policy move frees everyone including the male and that the female activist can not abide. .

    To BF’s assertion. Where did most of societies laws derive from. Sure men in government passed them under threat by their wifes back home. Heck a one time charge from a prostitute is cheaper than the continual succubus of home.

  10. Dale A Albrecht says:

    On the lighter side…Researchers have concluded that the universe is officially dying. They have stated that there is about 2B years remaining, so that gives us plenty of time to settle our affairs. So then why should we care about climate change. The universe ending is a far bigger catastrophy and we should start doing something about it. Surprised the UN hasn’t picked up the guantlet and started a crusade yet.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    In their arrogance, this Administration may have provided the means to undo its efforts to take private property under the guise of protecting clean water.

    The first item in the list used to be a VIOLATION of Federal Law. That being running of issue advocacy, especially coordinating such advocacy. Unless the rules have been changed this could provide an opening to overturning the rule. Along with the third item, which is a precedent set by prior Federal Courts.

    The second is meaningless because the Clean Water Act has always been implemented by the States with the EPA approving the State standards.

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Rand Paul is the closest thing to a “Libertarian” running on the Elephant ticket. I personally like many of his positions and hope he wins, along with Carly. If for no other reasons that to watch the Prog’s heads explode.

    But I am curious. How does this move make the rest of you feel about Rand or the Republican Party? By the way, it gives you some insight into how the party game is played and why Paul has tried not to alienate the GOP leadership to much.

    NOTE: Scroll down to see Trump’s snide comment. Clever but once again childish. Something I would expect from Debbie Wasserman Shultz………..Maybe the people of Kentucky don’t want to lose their best Senator due to some rule where the conflict is created by Party scheduling of primaries. Maybe they would like to see him run and win POTUS but return to serving Kentucky if he doesn’t get the POTUS nomination.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The Progressives don’t like Trump either, because of how he say’s things. Imagine that.

  13. They are about to throw Clinton under the bus…..who replaces her?

    • Clinton’s server has been confiscated….all of a sudden, department heads are lawyering up…

      • gmanfortruth says:

        LMAO! Awhile back I came up with a scenario about Clinton being thrown under the bus by Obama. Back then, it was my own conspiracy theory. It went like this: Clinton is thrown under the bus, Elizabeth Warren takes her place and wins the nomination. She thanks Obama by choosing him for her running mate. Adding to it now, Trump runs as a 3rd party candidate and Warren wins. Shortly after taking office, she resigns due to illness, Obama gets third term 🙂

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        What surprises me is that it took the FBI and DOJ so LONG to do this. They’ve known a long time she worked outside of the legal State dept system,

        Seeing that the oversight committee found little or nothing of her involvement in Benghazi and other events. And if they find that thre is nothing at all of any importance on her personal system. That is any State Dept communications, doesn’t this beg the question….what the hell did she do for 6 years as Secretary of State, other than look like a hag and drink beer with the good old boys. And be a party to the collapse of every nation she touched except those that had been our advesaries.

        • How long it took doesnot surprise me……they were not going to move because the Clinton machine was too big…….now, there are cracks in the dam and not enough fingers to go around….it almost seems as if there is a feeding frenzy about to start…………………….and like Obama did………………..someone sneaks in the back door. Nor Warren but senior advisor Valerie Jarrett? Put that one in your conspiracy theory.

    • Yeah, Obama doesn’t like the Clinton’s-so she isn’t gonna get any of the cover he gives to his friends.

    • Who replaces Hillary? A true blue liberal making moves to court independent voters.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      This will amount to nothing. There is little chance that anything on that server TODAY is related to her work at State. It will take Justice beyond the elections to find out what was “wiped” from the server. If they even try.

      Notice the headlines are “Clinton turns over server”. Not the truth which is Justice demanded the server and would have taken it if needed.

      Clintons are great at this game. I said some time back that they would dump the critical info and then turn stuff over to investigations in time to “prove she was innocent all along” and that this whole thing is just part of “the vast right wing conspiracy” to damage her and her husband.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I will restate my position…..if they found in OFFICIAL State records that she did nothing and knew nothing concerning anything that the oversight committees have been investigating. And her server comes up clean, as it will. Having 2 years to erase files with highly paid experts, nothing will be found that she did or knew anything. Her own clain that she found it inconvienient to carry two devices so she opted for HER personal server. Wouldn’t most if not all of the Secretary of States work be a such a level to be classified. This lead me to the obvious conclusion, that she did nothing and we wasted 6 years of salary on her and two that she is a person without the slightest moral fiber in her body including her husband. Geez the instant approval of a serious energy deal wangled by bill’s foundation with money going to her family’s foundation…come on.

        SK talks about the language, the language, the language. She claims there are NO classified documants on her server. Any business she did as SOS has to have some classification. My god everything I did as a corporate business person had a classification and usually was that NOBODY but the client and people with the requirement to know and was usually labeled a “Proprietory” and as such was a condition of employment if allowed out.

      • Much ADO about nothing,,,eh?

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          No it is a serious violation of Federal protocol for handling cabinet level communications as you know. My question would be after all these years of dithering I seriously doubt of it’s even the same server. Hard to delete stuff cleanly with no evidence, but move only the harmless files to the new one, now in the DOJ’s hands Crush the old one with the offending files in it. Every official including Obama is complicit. They had to know her emails were NOT coming from or GOING to the official .gov address.

          If it’s that clean it’s a total whitewash. especially if she did ALL business on that system.

  14. I feel like I’ve been ripped off. The title to this page is the first time I’ve seen Trump linked to a trumpet. And here his minions are called “Trumpeter’s”.

    Trump’s website
    By Thomas Lifson

    A friend who prefers to remain anonymous — no fan of Trump, writes:

    Checked out T’s website (decided to demote him as I have O, by using only the first letter of his name). As you might imagine, there’s nothing, zero, zip, nada about his views on important issues. Though, also as you might imagine, there’s a lot about T.

    So I called the campaign just because I could. I said I was curious about T’s views on various issues. This is how the conversation went with the young man who answered the phone:

    Me: Hi. I’m calling to find out how I can learn more about Donald Trump’s views on important issues facing the nation. I went to the website, but couldn’t find a drop down menu, but maybe I’m missing something. How can I read about his ideas on various issues of the day.

    Trumpeter: Issues? What do you mean?

    Me: Important issues of the day, whether domestic or foreign policy!

    Trumpeter: (silence) Um…

    Me: You know, most candidates have a place on their web site with broad categories where they offer statements that outline their positions, such as on national security, immigration, education, taxes, etc.

    Trumpeter: Well, you can email us.

    Me: You mean you send individual emails to people that outline Mr. Trump’s views and solutions on important issues?

    Trumpeter: Well, we’re open to suggestions from people.

    Me: But I’m not running for president! Mr. Trump is!. And I want to learn about his ideas on the enormous challenges this country is facing on numerous fronts.

    Trumpeter: (silence) Um…

    Me: This is just pathetic. You do know that, right? (click)

    • Just A Citizen says:

      For some time I have found this need to force candidates to provide “specific” proposals or policy goals as stupid and obnoxious.

      I watched Trump respond to this yesterday by stating that you cannot stake out a specific position in advance if you want to win your goal. Because staking out a position in advance can prevent you from doing what is needed to reach the goal.

      So what we should be focused on is the broader goals and GENERAL strategies.

      Things like “we should take their oil”. That is a general strategy to win the goal of eliminating ISIS. And it tells us all we need to know.

      Another good example, “we will get Mexico to pay for the wall and they will love to do it”. Goal, stop the illegal migration, strategy is to negotiate tough to show Mexico it is in their interest. Anyone with half a brain can fill in the space between.

      By the way, I defy anyone to find specific policy statements by Obama at this time in his first race. It was his goals that allowed me to judge him accurately. Not some list of policy statements.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Can anyone tell me why Rand Paul is slipping in the polls so badly? Why he cannot get any traction in the Republican primary.

    Is it as simple as his hair style and his voice? The guy represents most of what the Tea Party “conservatives” claim to represent. Yet they look to someone like Trump instead. I find it baffling.

    • His he still running-I read a lot and I’ve hardly heard his name mentioned. The last thing I remember reading is him saying Obama was right about blacks being treated unfairly. He got a little coverage after the debate but it wasn’t much.

      • The libertarians as far as I could tell seemed to be mad at him, they seemed to feel he wasn’t a true libertarian. And in other circles his being libertarian hurts him. Just a few of my observations anyway. Rand has been defined by his father which leaves him open to a lot of expectations and a lot of assumptions.

        • Oh and as a conservative, I’m not looking to Trump-he reminds me too much of Obama-I just think people want to shake things up -Trump is a real big, excuse my language, F##k you to the establishment.

    • Not baffling at all.
      He isn’t his father, so he lost the far right.
      He is wishy washy in his principles like everyone else, so no differentiation. He is no different then anyone else and comes with no benefits.

      Kicked to the curb.

    • If it was as simple as his hair style then Trump would automatically be out! I believe it’s more his mannerisms as well as that shrill voice he has when he gets angry.

  16. gmanfortruth says:
  17. gmanfortruth says:

    Jeff Foxworthy throws the blows in his column. Check it!

    If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

    If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

  18. Back from my girls’ get-away and off the grid. Man, it is certainly a good news/bad news thing to have no coverage! But we biked, sailed, hiked, paddle-boarded, drank, ate and talked.

    And the UNANIMOUS conclusion on men was exactly like I expected.

    They are just overgrown children.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      So what is your point???

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        She’s saying that a baby sitter or a maid was required. “geez whiz Mom trust me, I’ll keep the place clean”.

      • You missed it while you were gone JAC. BF went into beast mode on us last week saying that feminism is our doom. He told us sisters that we need to back down to the alphas since we are biologically weaker, need men for survival and so on. Kathy threw out her comment as above, BF probably called her an idiot or similar. She said she’d bring it up on her vacay and she’d report back. Prepare for BF to stomp in. 🙂

        Perfect opportunity to ask you if you happened to browse the last two pages on the subject. I was wishing you were here for the lesson.

        • and, yes BF, I realize your lesson involved more than I just laid out. Just go with it 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Figured it was related. Funny though, my daughter was sharing some research she read recently on how men and women’s brains work. It has been long held that men are more rational or logical thinking and women more emotion based thinking.

          This has been used by both men and women to criticize the other as we all know. But here is the thing. Being an emotional thinker does not mean it is BAD or a derogatory thing. New finding show that there is in fact something to this but it goes beyond a generalization of how we think or make decisions.

          There is evidence of actual physical differences in brain processing information in the decision making process. Which also relates to how men and women communicate, and why they have problems communicating.

          My daughter’s summary was this: A picture of how men think and communicate would look like a spread sheet or matrix. With lines of thought and discussion following along rows and columns. Short, fairly direct and in some sort of order that men hear as a “logical” explanation.

          The picture representing women is a large bowl of spaghetti. Thoughts and discussions follow these long circuitous paths which confuse men, causing us much angst when dealing with serious matters, but make sense to other women.

          I noted that the spaghetti model might explain why women have to “process” serous things so long. Like tragedy or emotional issues. She said that was covered in the paper she read, and there might be something to it. Women just have to complete the circuitry which is much longer than men’s.

          Now back to the “emotional” vs “logical” models. I have said here before that if you look at our history, and that of the world, that you will find Socialism having little momentum until Women got the vote. This added a huge contingent of voters who used their “feelings” and “emotions” about family, children, the handicapped, etc, etc. to push for greater Socialized programs.

          Obviously not all men and women fit the models. But they do seem to hold for the average or majority. Try thinking about how powerful the “Progressive” movement would be today if only half the women who consistently vote Democrat stopped doing so.

          I hope this doesn’t reopen the man vs. woman discussion again. Just wanted to share some new information and put it in context of prior information.

          • Actually, your daughter has it wrong.

            Men and women are equally rational and logical, there is no real difference.

            But they employ different strategies for biological success. Women are very rational WITHIN their strategy as are men WITHIN their strategy.

            Women are merely looking through a different window then men, because they are different biologically.

            It has NOTHING to do with being “irrational emotion” vs “logical non-emotion”. It has to do with a totally different perspective on biological success, consequently resulting in completely different strategies for such a success

            Men and women have different “superpowers”. Men is violence. Women is emotion.
            Women lack violence, men lack emotion. It becomes a trade between them to gain the benefit the other has in abundance.

          • The brain theory difference is somewhat accurate.

            Women, to survive, need strength in numbers, which requires an elevated ability to communicate emotion and desires within a group.

            Men, to survive, are vastly more individualistic, which requires an elevated ability to focus on the immediate situation and suppress less relevant stimuli.

            Thus women connect, men compartmentalize.

        • Oh, what puffy nonsense. “STOMP”
          Yes, feminism is your doom. I laid out the case that you cannot refute.

          I did not, however, say to “backdown” to alphas. I said, you need to wake up your sisters and tell them their modern biological strategy is a total failure. Your sisters are perverting their successful strategy BY over-emphasizing their unions with meat heads under the guise of “liberation”.

          And by “failure”, I mean DEVASTATING failure; an absolute abolishing of any particular gain of women for their rights. Without understanding this, you are dooming the future of women back to what they were 5,000 years ago – chattel and slaves.

          • I never can refute you BF, but I can keep trying. I’m just not buying it.

            And lighten up anyway. I didn’t say you STOMPED. I said you stomped.

            I don’t drink, but I can cyber drink. Here’s a Bud Light BF! Cheers! 😉

            • Anita, my dear.
              I do not want ANYONE to “buy it”.
              I do want you to FIGHT FOR IT.

              If you believe “this or that” is fine, if you can support it with reason. Merely believing without any support is utterly foolish, Peter Pan-ish, and deadly.

              If you dispute what I say, show it.

              If you cannot, yet cannot accept my conclusion, the fault is wholly yours and so are the consequences.

              You are denying reality, and though one can deny reality, one can never deny the consequences of denying reality.

              • Tell you what. I’ll get my sisters to drop feminism. You get your brothers to control their testosterone and to obey your theme of no violence on the non violent. That should take care of the problem. You admit that there are many right answers. We have come way too far as a civilized to allow your might is right, prehistoric view of life after feminism to flourish. You’d have to have 100% of men on board. I don’t see that happening. You told me to not assume that because you have organized your life a certain way, that the rest would follow. But you are the very proof that your scenario doesn’t fit. There are more like you than there are cavemen. You would have to be telling me that if you saw me being drug off into a cave by my hair, that you wouldn’t defend me. I’m not buying it.

              • Anita,
                “Tell you what. I’ll get my sisters to drop feminism. You get your brothers to control their testosterone and to obey your theme of no violence on the non violent.”

                See, you absolutely demonstrate the utterly lack of comprehension that I speak of about women.

                You want to trade something your sisters have created as a CONSCIENCE TACTIC for what is NATURAL in men. You just don’t get it

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It usually starts with mutual respect. Kathy’s comment shows why Flag’s comments are likely to come true.

              • It is what I expected, merely the natterings of hen’s in the hen house.

                Perhaps for them they will not live to see that day when their daughters are prostrate, face in the dirt, beaten, traded like animals, and begging for crumbs. I know they will not see such men as children anymore.

              • Look, Anita.
                Your offer is no different the me saying to you; “If you stop breathing, I’ll give you $1 billion.”

                You don’t get the difference between a tactic and a natural instinct.
                You don’t get that men are always violent.
                You don’t get that women have the power to redirect the violence, but have NO POWER in CONTAINING IT.
                You demand containment. It will explode in your face.

                That tactic of redirection is powerful, the whole world as you see it is a testament to that success. Your sisters are undoing themselves by failing to understand how they were able to redirect it. And it will flash back right into your faces.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Something just came to mind on this problem in Kentucky with Rand Paul being on the ballot as both a POTUS and Senate candidate.

    Lets assume he drops out of the POTUS race so he can be on the “ballot” as only a Senator.

    Then what happens if in August the new Rep. nominee for POTUS selects Paul as his VP running mate.

    Kentucky will have to put the pair on the ballot which means Paul will be on twice. Do they FORCE him to drop out as Senator? I am guessing that is what they would have to do.

  20. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Has anyone else noticed the two most over used words on the “internet” homepages are “Beloved” and “Shocking” Beloved used even for the most obscure person or dog in today’s case. and shocking even in the most mundane events even used to describe the healthful benefits of spicy food.

    News flash of both words used in one article. “Beloved former president has shocking medical diagnoses”. Jimmy Carter has cancer. OK….and beloved only by the PLO and Hamas.

  21. Let’s see……..BP has an oil blowout….and the US panicked and Washington stomped around saying how things are so bad with the corporate world and how things need to be TIGHTENED up….

    The EPA dumps several million gallons into a river and says that they are doing an “internal” nvestigation and that there is nothing to worry about turning a river shitty yellow that is leaving residue all along the banks but unlike BP….the say that the natural forces will clean up te residue over time….no need to scrub miles of river bank…..

    BP fined and paid millions…the EPA……just an internal investigation that is classified.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I just love how the law only applies to the other guy. Like signing off on “Taking” protected species. EPA and US Wildlife signed off. But its green energy and besides thinning. is good. But they continue to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anybody else.

      The EPA chiefs comments, well its flushing fast and should be OK. The heavy metals which are settling out down the entire length of the river system, are not benign.

      I came across an article today how by a clause giving one exemption only to the FAA in the statutes of NC has now allowed a huge windfarm to start being built…get this without any local, State approval. It bypasses the entire systems set up to protect. This is going in on huge towers much taller than normal because the wind is a bit more available at higher altitudes. The Navy was even bypassed. This farm is going in where it will affect the quadrant of radar in the hattaras area.

      The wildlife kills are really getting attention in and around windfarms. The US Wildlife head said at one review meeting “well we really don’t know the true #’s, but a way to find out is build it and then we’ll count” geez that’s arrogant. With the 1000’s built already the toll is increasing daily. Just go and talk to people aroung Altamont in CA. Just saw a film in Germany of a flock of partridge just massacred as they flew into the farm at the edge of the bird sanctuary. The hypocracy just gets me.


    Fightin’ words……..but it is Austin, our failed liberal experiment.

  23. Well, let’s see how stupid pundits can be…….watched the token liberal, Geraldo Rivera, trying to protect Clinton on secret and top secret documents….making the statement….if a person with a secret clearance handed another person with secret clearance a document labeled classified or secret is ok..there is no foul…..

    Ummmmmmmmmm…Geraldo…………just because you have a security clearance of Secret or top secret does not allow you to see all things so marked….there is this little caveat….

    NEED TO KNOW………….if you do not have a legitimate need to know, you are not allowed to peruse classified documents.

    Man o MAN….stuff like this makes me want to join BF…….

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      To cold up in Canada…your old bones won’t take it anymore.

      • Cold makes you stronger in summer.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Yes, from slogging through the snow on your snowshoes. Lived all together to many years up on the Canadian border in New England. I do not miss breaking up the 6′ ice dam at the end of my driveway with an axe. A plow would be broken trying to break through it.

          I do not miss it. I will concede one point. Keeping the house open instead of AC was nice. I follow it here in NC now all year except on the most brutally humid days or the worse cold days. Without trapped air one is healthier.

    • …and one day D13, you’ll join me …. It is a process, not a revolution, that makes Black Flags out of men.

      • Maybe…but you will have to live down here…..anything below 60 degrees is a blue norther in my book. I can hunt in the cold, skiin the cold, glacier climb in the cold…..but two weeks of that……is enough.

        And, we are making changes in Texas…..we have started at the bottom and are working our way up. So I will stick around and help the changes.

        If I knew how to post a picture on here, I think that everyone would be interested in seeing the many kiosks around the state……all selling what ever flag anyone wants to buy….

        We have some California transplants in this county that are taking exception to US flags, come and take it flags, POW flags, state flags………flying in at most of the homes around..and they have even attended a city meeting where they are objecting to the Patriot Stars placed in windows signifying deaths or participation or retired military. They are saying that any display of flags is…………………..racist. Cool, I am a racist then…..

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The whole election cycle becomes a farce when you accept that voting will not fix the mess in DC. The farce can be entertaining, because you realize what liars these psychopaths truly are. It’s “head shaking” to watch all these people get all freaked out over who they want to run the next corrupt regime they will be slaves too!

      • You’re a slave weather you vote or not. Even you are not on board with absolutely no federal government. If all the Gmen and Flags would help to fight the machine by casting a vote, we may be able to get some traction. At least we are putting up a fight. You allow it to continue. That is head shaking.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. That my dear is utter stupidity. If the last election taught you nothing, there is no help for you.

          • The last election is what brought about Trump. The last election is causing many to shed their faith in parties. Isn’t that progress to you?

          • THen…there is no help for me…..I am not now nor will I ever be an anarchist….Anita, you have to understand one thing with anarchists……even their form of power is evil by definition. Revolutions are evil in some eyes, and not in others…..

            But notice one thing, Anita….the anarchists that are in the US….well, they are still here living under the very rules they do not like… seems to me, that a true anarchist will not follow any law that they do not like and be willing to go to jail for their belief…for instance…a true anarchist will not pay their income tax, will not put a license plate on their car, or pay their property taxes……they would not go by any rule they do not like……They still live under the rules of their homeowners association or their local laws and restrictions….they still have insurance cards in their cars and carry their firearms licenses.

            Usually, their form of protest is in not voting for anything…..but that is their right also and, of course, have their voice on the internet.

            I see the same things at city council meetings or school meetings or legislative meetings. When confronted why they are not at the meetings trying to change things…I always get one of two answers…..” Man, I just do not have the time” or ” Nothing will change if I go, so why bother”……if you have been noticing, since the Ferguson incident, there have been organized meetings all over the place and they are making headway. Police are beginning to back off, no arrests are being made, personal and private property is being destroyed because every one is afraid of being labeled a racist….

            The latest shooting in Arlington, Texas has made the news because it already has been hijacked by the media and the lib groups….the unarmed kid that was destroying tens of thousands of dollars of cars. Driving his vehicle through a plate glass window and was preparing to drive another car out of the dealership… my opinion, he should have been brought down the very first time he was warned….instead they just watched him start destroying other cars….I do not subscribe to the theory that the punishment must fit the crime…..this lad was ignoring police orders, jumping from car to car….destroying personal and private property after a break in……I would not lose one ounce of sleep with taking that lad down….but all we are going to hear now is how sick he was or how he was protesting and that shooting any unarmed person regardless of the circumstances is wrong.

            Well, let us see what the grand jury says. ….because the rookie that shot the kid has been fired and supposedly will be charged. So, his case will go before the Tarrant County Grand Jury…..we are already prepared for what will happen….I do not think that any “Black Lives Matter’s” will start a riot… will be over very quick.

            • And, I might add, it won’t be the police stopping it………

            • Yep. And there’s also the peaceful protests…Chic fil A and Hobby Lobby. The Patriot Guard always gets their way peacefully. No hope for them either I guess.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Howdy Colonel!

              a true anarchist will not pay their income tax

              I don’t know about that, sir. An anarchist is still (nominally) a rational human being. Obeisance to law threats of violence does not make you condone or approve of such matters.

              Think of it this way: if someone mugs you at gunpoint and you hand him your wallet, are you a believer in the idea that it’s right to have given him your wallet? An anarchist (summoning Mr. Black Flag) would probably view things in this way.

              in my opinion, he should have been brought down the very first time he was warned….instead they just watched him start destroying other cars….I do not subscribe to the theory that the punishment must fit the crime

              ANY shooting of an non imminent physically threatening person is morally evil. Human life is worth more than some cars. It is worth more than all cars combined. A single human life is an invaluable and irreplaceable thing. To shoot (and possibly kill) a human being is an irreversible action.

              That said, I don’t think that the police should be required to sit idly by. But there are plenty of non-lethal actions which can be tried before it gets to the point of “he should have been brought down the very first time he was warned.” Cordon the area off. Rubber bullets. Gas canisters. That really cool sound weapon thing. Something, anything.

              The idea that “you get your warning, then you get a 260 Remmy in the head” is anathema to me. Violence – especially (potentially) lethal force – should always be an absolute last recourse.

              • HEY MATHIUS……..good to hear from you. I see that, in today’s time, everything needs to be explained fully….bringing someone down carries a lot of meaning….tasers will bring someone down….A quick baton to the skull will bring someone down…..I do not believe in rubber bullets and bean bags…

                But, and you and I will obviously disagree on this…..the wanton destruction of property..especially someone’s business…..there is no moral imperative there.

                Anarchist defined: A person who promotes anarchy. by flouting , or ignoring rules, duties, or orderly behaviour. ( From New World Dictionary )

                Anarchy: The complete absence of government, political disorder and violence; lawlessness, and disorder in any sphere of activity. ( From New World Dictionary )

                Anarchism: the theory that all forms of government interfer unjustly with individual liberty and should be replaced by the voluntary association of cooperative groups. Resistance, sometimes in the form of terrorism, to organized government.

                Now, to BF….exactly where have I applied an incorrect label or mis-defined? I am opn to being wrong.,,,but show me please.

              • Anarchy – “no right to rule”. Period. That is what the word means, at its root.

                You are merely plying the same revolution in the form as with, say, the word “gay”.

              • “an” = No
                “archy” = right to rule

                The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία (anarchia), which combines ἀ (a), “not, without” and ἀρχή (arkhi), “ruler, leader, authority.” Thus, the term refers to a person or society “without rulers” or “without leaders.”

              • As summary Kant named four kinds of government:

                Law and freedom without force (anarchy).
                Law and force without freedom (despotism).
                Force without freedom and law (barbarism).
                Force with freedom and law (republic).

                Only the first and last can be morally determined.
                But the former is ALWAYS morally determined, the latter CAN BE PERVERTED morally.

              • I see…so I have to accept your definition….or the old world definition….well, you answered me…thanks.

              • Look, if you can’t accept my definition, yet, label me with yours, what have you accomplished? Dick shit, that’s what.

                You are talking “football” with some guy, telling him his offensive strategy sucks, that he needs to throw more passes down field instead of running up the middle, when the other guy is trying to tell you, he can’t touch the ball to make a pass because its against the game rules.

                I mean, what are you trying to do here?

              • D13,

                It is the Statist who must mis-define anarchy, because the Statists CANNOT justify their position on any moral principle, while anarchists can.

                Trapped by their own immoral premise, they need to push the definition of their opposition to be just as immoral as they are – claiming those that oppose State violence are the most violent of the two in the argument. Hence, any time non-State violence rises, the Statist yell “ANARCHISTS”. Yet, they are not anarchists at all, they are merely other violent actors. It is only the Statists labeling and redefining here, nothing more.

                Almost every anarchist who self-labels himself as such is massively NON-VIOLENT. But you don’t fuckin’ care about that. If you did, you’d be forced to admit the perversity of your own philosophy. So you ignore the explicit statements and actions of this group with a wave of your hand.

                You then apply your perverse mis-labeling against this mass, pretend they are the same as any other violent actor, even when they are not, as a defense for your own perverse immoral State

              • It really does not matter, BF. Whether you accept my definition, which I took out of the dictionary…or your definition which you took from a different source….you claim yours is correct…I am cool with that if that is what you wish to believe….

                My only position is what the definition that I looked up…..and it is what it is…you do not accept it…great. I did not label you nor spoke specifically to you….I was, in general saying that those, who claim the anarchist title or meaning..are not doing what the definition that I presented said….So, who is correct here? A matter of semantics. My whole point is…..those that do not like the government and complain about theft of taxes and excessive violence and laws they do not like… not walk the walk. They still pay their taxes and they still play the game…they still follow the very rules they claim not to like….

                The true Anarchist ( by the definition I offered ) would stare down the government face to face and throw the tea bags in the river. It does not make sense to me to complain about something…let’s use the idea of theft when it comes to taxes………why would any anarchist pay homage?it does not fit the mold of what the definition of anarchist is…. or is it render unto Ceasar that is Ceasars?

                That is….unless you are disavowing all definitions from different sources all basically saying the same thing….and decide that yours is the only definition…….cool beans.

                So, if I read your comment correctly….you are saying that the definition that I offered and the source it came from is a Statist position…..and mis-defined.

                Here is a different source….an·ar·chist
                noun: anarchist; plural noun: anarchists

                a person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy.
                synonyms: nihilist, insurgent, agitator, subversive, terrorist, revolutionary, revolutionist, insurrectionist
                adjective: anarchist

                1. relating to or supporting anarchy or anarchists.
                “an anarchist newspaper”

                or perhaps this one…


                a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
                a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
                a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

                or this one

                noun an·ar·chist \ˈa-nər-kist, -ˌnär-\

                : a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary

                Full Definition of ANARCHIST
                : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
                : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

                This is enough because it does not matter, my friend. My whole premise is that if anyone believes that, as an example, taxes are theft and, therefore illegal, …….but yet, still pay the taxes that are illegal… hypocrisy. So, let me ask you this question..if you decide not to vote because it is hopeless in your mind….ok. I accept that. But if you are going to claim anarchist……and the definitions that I posted…four of them all say the same thing……then you should be advocating violence because those four definitions all said that is what an anarchist does. That is my position.

                As a Veteran, if I say that all veterans should pick up arms and go protect a recruitment center, then I better be leading the bunch..otherwise I would be guilty of hypocrisy. So, yes, I am applying the definitions that I posted. But, according to you, all those definitions are statist and mis-defined.

                By the way……I have read Tucker, Proudhon, and Bakunin extensively. Actually, pretty interesting reading…..a little too far out there for me….but interesting reads. Especially Kropotkin’s Revolutionary Pamphlets….

              • As I already pointed out, you can put whatever definition you want upon whatever you want – but putting your definition upon other people and ignoring theirs is utterly stupid.

                It is merely a childish tactic to avoid the other person’s position, and it is most often used by those whose own position is perverse that they cannot defend it on its own merits, thus need to deflect that position into an area where it can be attacked.

              • “taxes are theft and, therefore illegal, …….but yet, still pay the taxes that are illegal… hypocrisy”

                Wrong headed thinking, to no surprise.

                Taxes ARE theft.
                Taxes ARE legal. They are backed up by violent threat of government. No surprise you pervert the concept of “legal” to make your case.

                And further, to claim one who pays taxes but knows its theft is, as Mathius pointed out, not hypocrisy, its survival, no less surrendering your wallet to an armed thief.

              • The hypocrisy, D13, is not upon the man who pays, but on the violent force of government that makes what it does legal, but if you do it, illegal. That is where the hypocrisy exists, sir

            • It is because you do not know what an anarchist is, apply incorrect labels, and mis-define them.

        • No, deary, that will not do ANYTHING as it is utterly pointless.
          You pretend digging a hole in the ocean will somehow make a hole. It never does, never will, and instead you want us to waste our time.

  24. gmanfortruth says:
  25. gmanfortruth says:
  26. gmanfortruth says:
  27. Trump could really take his lead and run with it if he added a few things to his agenda.

    Term limits for politicians and judges
    Every single budget for every department and agency is to be cut by 10%. No baseline budgeting anymore
    Goodbye EPA, DoE, or other agencies

    and so on

  28. Mathius™ says:

    Hi Strangers!

    Just thought I’d stop in and mention that I, for one, want Trump to win the Red Shirt nomination and lose catastrophically to Bernie Sanders.

    The One,
    The Only,
    The Mathius

    • And hello back to you, stranger than us. You really ought to jump on the Trump bandwagon. He’ll let you keep $.90 of your dollar. Sanders will leave you with $.20. You’ll get many more of your dream possessions with 90! Nice to hear from you.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It saddens me that people have learned nothing from Venezuela, Greece, Cyprus and soon to be other countries with many socialist policies. Socialism relies on theft, until the money from others runs out, then you get major austerity. I’m surprised you are not wise enough to see it for what it is, the downfall of everyone.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Socialism cannot fail – it can only be failed. 😉

        • Socialism ALWAYS and CANNOT AVOID failing. It’s core premise is perverted, and cannot stand without massive applications of violence and tyranny.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Negative. All theft fails. It is immoral. People will suffer and learn, as you seem to want to travel that path.

  29. Mathius™ says:

    Unrelated announcement: The Mathius household welcomes the arrival of offspring #2.

    • Wonderful!

      If you missed it, I lost my wife to cancer in June.
      At least the score card is even this summer, which is wonderful.

      • Mathius™ says:

        I am incredibly sorry to hear that. I can’t even imagine what that must have been like – and if memory serves, she was fairly young, too. You, of course, have my deepest sympathy.

        How are you children fairing?

        • Daughter is out east upgrading her pilot’s license. She wants to start the process of flying with the Red Bull Air Racing Team – her current dream. Doing very well with that – but hasn’t had the time to actually contemplate much other than that. I’m expecting that when she gets home soon.

          • Mathius™ says:

            I’m pleased that your daughter is getting involved in Red Bull… that stuff is delicious.

            I don’t know how I’d feel, as a dad, about my daughters getting into Air Racing. I guess you have to let the live their dreams, but I’d much prefer my kids go into something… safer.

            If she makes the team, you need to let me know, so I can root for her.

    • Sweet! Congrats to you and….I forgot her name. Mathoozala? Honestly I forgot 🙂

      • Mathius™ says:


        Now with a 3 year old and a 0 year old.

        All are happy and healthy, though, of course, Emilius could use a little more sleep.

        • Translated:
          Mathius could use a little more sleep.

          Between the lines:
          Mathius, instead of sleeping, has been fooling around with his wife. Self-incriminating evidence already supplied…

          • Mathius™ says:

            Mathius could always use a little more sleep. But his wife is doing the lion’s share of the night feedings and such. I’m still getting a solid six hours a night. She isn’t going more than two or three hours at a time.

            Mathius, instead of sleeping, has been fooling around with his wife. Self-incriminating evidence already supplied…

            Allow me to explain how gestational periods work in mammals…. 😉

            • Congrats my friend…congrats…..I lost my dad this past March… a young 96….dealing with estate stuff….

              Having all kinds of fun on the border……glad you dropped in…..

            • gmanfortruth says:

              It’s also nice to here from you. Hope things keep going well for Ya! 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Congrats on the new family member, better you than me 🙂

    • Congratulations-Boy, girl ?

  30. @ BF……just got in a monster box of one ounce Maple Leaf silver…and a monstor box of the 1/2 ounce silver from your Royal Canadian Mint…….you have one up there you like better?

  31. @ BF…you said….”Taxes ARE theft…..Taxes ARE legal………………….I have never heard or read your statement like this before….This changes your whole dynamic. So…..having said this….you are no anarchist. You do not subscribe to violence at all (except if a grizzly comes into your home)…..and if you point to the fact that you do not support by voting….that is not an anarchist stance in my mind….but now seeing what you describe as anarchy… comes in much clearer.

    “No surprise you pervert the concept of “legal” to make your case.” Now now, sir…this is crap and you know it. The only case that I try to make is one that I standy by….to disagree but do nothing….is disagreeing and doing nothing.

    And…”And further, to claim one who pays taxes but knows its theft is, as Mathius pointed out, not hypocrisy, its survival, no less surrendering your wallet to an armed thief.”….no sir,,,,this does not wash but that is ok…..I now understand from where you are coming…

    Sorry but hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another…..but therein lies the difference between you and I…….and that is also ok. We can disagree and still be friends. You and I actually do not vary much…..every now and then.

    • Yes you have.
      Legal is what ever the government allows as an action. “That which is allowed by law”
      Since government makes its theft allowed by law, it is legal. Often referred to “legalized theft”.

      Since you are clueless to what “anarchist” is, your declaration of application of such a label is without merit.

      Who is saying one thing? Saying taxes are theft, and to save my life I give up my property to the thief is not hypocrisy. But claiming theft is MORAL is hypocrisy, thus, you need to review who you are pointing to with your finger, sir. The man in the mirror is pointing at you.

  32. Texas National Guard….6……Cartel 0…………………………… the last week we have shot down 6 drones from Mexico.

    • Nice! How many have your bullet in them. ::::please say at least one::::

      • Nope….sorry. I did not pull the trigger…..I do have some youngsters that want to “pop caps”….However, I will take it under advisement and bring one down for you….although they do seem to lesser these days.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Did you see the report yesterday on the number of DRONES being sighted by pilots in and near airports and also flying well outside of the FAA prescribed “safe” zones. A little kids backyard toy is one thing, but outside of that why do DRONES not have to file a flight plan just like any other aviator or airline with a regular plane?

          Like T-Ray said and also having been reported in the news, that drones are interferring with firefighting and emergency crews. Obviously nosey people or news services but causing crews to ground themselves due to the hazard created….just get in the way of ambulance and fire crews on the street. If they get your number, whoa be tide to you. The penalties are harsh to say the least….I can see the use of a drone to assist in a wildfire. The loitering time would be of great assistance. They also could fly way above the firefighting planes and helicopters. But their traffic can be coordinated with emergency teams.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    SUFA ladies.

    OK, thanks to Kathy’s little shot and Anita’s explanation I have gone back and lost a couple hours of my life catching up on the women vs. man paradigm presented by BF.

    I do think you ladies reacted our of “training” and did not stop to digest what was being said. This was evidenced by claims that “I will not bow to the threat of violence by men”, type statements. That was obviously not the point unless of course Society collapses and Women lose control of the “civilization” they created. Then quite frankly you will in fact bow to this fear or you will die. But again, that is not the threat of today but the threat of what will be if civilization collapses.

    Now lets get to the end.

    “V.H. says:

    August 4, 2015 at 7:07 pm (Edit)

    Since I agree that woman have way overstepped-I understand why men are angry and they have reason-How am I to process this information in the form of a threat-because I’m not willing to pay homage to men out of fear-Respect they can have-the fact that they can use force to control me is simply a reality that I will not willingly bow down too and give up my freedom too out of fear of the consequences. Anymore than you would.

    So what is your point?”

    My Occum answer: LET MEN BE MEN. and of course, LET WOMEN BE WOMEN.

    On a longer note, this long post by BF goes to my comment about women and their relationship to the increase in “socialism”. But it goes further by addressing what happens when the “radicals” gain control of that system. So if they continue down the path of replacing men with the State, of denigrating men, ridiculing men, trying to feminize young boys, there is going to be hell to pay.

    Unless of course, Men are reprogrammed and the MALE GENE is someone supplanted.

    • No.

      Because that justifies men treating women as just a piece of ass. And that’s what it all boils down to for me.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is not what it means nor does it justify such. Apparently the whole effort was wasted on you if that is all you got from it.

        Now if you so fiercely object to this premise then propose one of your own.

        Tell us what the “biological imperative” is for humans.

        Tell us why men and women in modern civilization are apparently so different from how our ancient ancestors behaved?

        • Sorry JAC. That is exactly what I got out of it. He spent an awful lot of time explaining that men can produce millions of offspring, then walk off. Women can only produce 20 or so, and we’re left to raise them in a loving way. His argument can apply to males in general, but not HUMAN males, capable of self control. We have evolved from cavemen status, all the way up to no violence on the non violent. I don’t care how you dress it up by claiming instinct over self control , it’s still justification. Why is it that you can claim homosexuality is a behavior, but somehow this is instinct?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Behavior can be instinctual.

            What I personally said about homosexual behavior is that it is “voluntary”. But that holds true for all sexual acts. We do not have sex reflexively, like when we breath or blink our eyes. Having sex is a choice, no matter how much we claim we couldn’t fight off the “urge”.

            His argument absolutely holds for human males. But he did not say this was the state of men today. He explained this was how men and women existed before men became civilized by women.

            There is no doubt that men have become more civilized. BF is claiming women did that. A very lofty compliment it seems to me. If it was not women then what was the cause?

            His discussion of reproductive potential is ACCURATE and TRUTHFUL. I fail to see how this equates to any submission of women to men or that men only view women as sex toys. But on the other hand it is pretty true that many men on earth do view women in that way.

            So if that behavior exists, and it exists mostly in those areas we view as less civilized, then why do you think men will not revert to that behavior if the MODERN paradigm is destroyed?

            BF was outlining the various strategies for men and women in achieving the common “biological imperative” of all living things. To perpetuate their existence. The purpose of Life is to LIVE.

            Now on the same topic and combined with the criticism of modern feminism provided by the video V.H. posted, take a look at this story. The woman being criticized is raising some of the same points BF has raised. The woman doing the criticizing is using the typical leftist method of ridicule and isolate, via distortion and exaggeration. But both are there to see.


            • JAC, you cannot be serious.

              If the MODERN paradigm is destroyed…..seems to me BF already has this figured out. Drag the woman off to the cave.

              That tells me that men have not evolved. Also tells me that you would not step in if BF dragged me off.

              (Out til later)…GO LIONS!

            • First, let’s not let this conversation take a turn where some how it seems like the women on SUFA are supporting the present day feminist movement. I am not and I’ve never heard any comments by the other women on here in support of denigrating men-jokes or sarcastic comments maybe, but not support. Second, BF is the only person I can think of where I can agree with almost all he say’s about a particular topic and still find myself adamantly disagreeing with him at the same time.

              It’s also apparent that along with our other biological differences, we also hear things very differently. 🙂

              It is not BF’s basic facts I have a problem with and I did hear the compliments he paid to women, my problem is with his bottom line. Women better realize this fact or else. Not that women should stop this crap because it’s the right thing to do. Not that it’s better for society, men, woman , and children if we respect each other and appreciate each other for what we bring to the civilized world and to relationships but because if we don’t man will revert to being uncivilized and put woman back in their proper place. Under BF’s argument, as a woman I can never truly be free or equal. And somehow we are supposed to just say, Oh okay, man is physically stronger and that fact is somehow more important and has more importance than love, respect, morality and everything else that becoming civilized was supposed to teach us.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                “Oh okay, man is physically stronger and that fact is somehow more important and has more importance than love, respect, morality and everything else that becoming civilized was supposed to teach us.”

                Not more important that love, respect and morality. But that if love, respect and morality are destroyed because men no longer have any advantage from these then what does man turn to. The argument is he returns to being the violent Alpha. Not because violence or strength is more important but because the other things have become less important due to the actions of others.

                So the issue is not whether man’s physical strength is more important but under what conditions does it become more important. And what and when does his tendency towards violence overcome his engagement in love, respect and morality. And most of all, WHY would this happen?

                You admit we hear things differently and your last paragraph proves your point. BF’s point was that if the “women’s lib” movement and the “progressive ideology” they espouse continues down this path it could be the catalyst or tipping point at which men start to abandon the social construct that has develop over eons. You hear him saying that women must shape up or else, that you cannot be free or equal because of this reality, this constant threat. It is not a threat. It is an objective analysis of what could happen, and why, if the Feminists keep pushing the destruction of Men as Men and trying to convince themselves and their sisters they do not need men at all. That men are beasts and not to be trusted.

                Here is another way to look at this. Think about what we have all said the outcome might be if the left keeps screaming Racist and Misogynist at anyone who disagrees. Especially the potential White Blow Back for the Racist crap. The same basic factors exist with the Feminists’ denigration and minimalizing of men. If you think Whites might some day strike back then why would you not recognize the same possibility for men?

                Interestingly, while checking out information on his theory I came across two article showing new polling data among young singles. There has been an increase in the percentage of young women who view a good marriage as a key part of life over the past ten years. There has been an almost equal DECREASE in the number of young men with the same viewpoint. This would seem to be an indicator of the very thing BF is predicting.

                Frankly I don’t necessarily see the slide to outright violence. But I do see the potential for women to compensate for lack of men by using more Govt. program interventions. This will eventually cause men so much pain, financially, they might revolt. And they might see women as the primary source of their pain.

              • Wow. More justification. And spin. I don’t know weather you believe this or if you’re just trying to explain what BF said

                Because men no longer have an advantage. .. In other words…can’t keep a woman in her place

                Because love and morality have become less important……I read some where (the bible) about faith hope and love, and the greatest of these is love….doesn’t say in the absence of love, resort to violence.

                Not a threat, it’s an objective analysis….coming from a man! Ha!

                Same as white blowback from racist crap…. I think this is false. I don’t see whites going violent over this, we’ll just ignore them….kinda like what’s happening to alpha males.

                I’m more convinced about being single now than I ever was before. Glad I already have my children. VH, I wish I could articulate like you, I agree with your last paragraph 100%.

              • Couple more thoughts. I’m the biggest of tomboys. I have always felt more at ease around guys than girls, even though I have 5 sisters, two brothers. I’ve lived in the same neighborhood my entire life and I have many lifelong friends. I hear how these guys talk. They talk in the same kind of code as has been laid out here. Basically, all they want is some dinner on the table and some action in the bedroom. It’s a shame because there is so much more to a relationship than that. I’ve been rounds with these guys for years over this. At the same time they will admit that I’m one of the more moral people they know.

                Obviously, I’ve come across the same attitude with my kids dads, though neither were in my close circle of friends. I, too, have always wanted to be married. In hindsight I’m glad I never did marry. Maybe we need to just lose the divorce benefits , because women are capable of supporting rhemselves, then you guys won’t feel as though you’ll be financially ruined. But then , like G mentioned, he likely wouldn’t have paid child support absent the barrel of a gun. That kind of attitude adds fuel to my fire.

              • Anita and VH.

                Both of you refuse to accept the rational argument, not because the argument is wrong, but because the conclusion riles you.

                This is a sign of an irrational mind.

                1+1=2. “But I don’t like 2, therefore the statement is wrong!” is all you are plying here.

                Love is not less important. As I laid out, it it the most important thing a man wants
                He will die for it, kill or be killed for it, send entire nations into war for it, and completely abort his own biological imperative for it – how can you POSSIBLY claim it is less important??? It must be your own willful stupidity.

                But as JAC so softly laid out, (and you ignored him too, as your ilk will always do, to your own disgrace and ultimately your own collapse, if a man does not get that, what do you expect him to do?…. melt away? No, he will respond with his superpower, and if it is not given, it will be violently seized.

                Yes, Gman would not pay money to his errant and ridiculous wife, who knowing she could steal his resources and give him nothing in return, did just that.
                All relationship failures are the failure of the woman, not the man. Without any consequence to her, she failed her relationship. She had 100% the power to make their relationship a success and she chose not to, because she could get everything she wanted without supplying anything for it.

                If women like you think you can continue believing this deal goes on forever, you will, one day, wake up to a whole new world order with you holding the bottom rung

              • PS: Women are NOT capable of supporting themselves.

                I have laid out specifically why (your biology). Without the violent force of the State, you are doomed to suffer if you pretend you can support yourself. Thus you need the violent force of the State if you refuse to deal with men.

                But you forget, it is men who provide this violence, not women. You are pretending that throwing away your man in favor of the State … is not equally throwing away the men of the State.

                Men control the State – and as you dismiss men, you dismiss these men too.
                And the violent force of the State will not come to your rescue, it will absolutely come against you. See my examples of Boco Harem, and ISS, etc.

              • ROFL!!!!

                I am not scared BF. Not for me, not for my daughters or granddaughters. Take the state away all you want! We will survive. SK’s comment about western civilization is correct. (Almost all of) You have (supposedly) evolved, so your comment about BH and ISIS doesn’t fly. YOU may drag your concubine off…doesn’t mean the civilized men will. Which is where my moral comment comes in JAC. If a man’s attitude towards marriage is bad, it’s a stretch to say that a man would not still defend a woman against violence. I’m done with this because there’s still things up above that are either ridiculous or outdated that I’m not going to even try, to just hear more justification.

              • Anita,
                You should be. Your sisters and daughters will be the biggest losers in history.
                Western culture is at its end. It was destroyed by the First World War; it is a “dead man walking”.

                You do not see the world very well. You believe that cultures cannot de-evolve. You hare historically ignorant, and hence, no nothing much at all.

                Men do things for a reason. You are corrupting such reason with your attitude. Without any reason to protect you, they will not protect you.

                You have no argument other then dismissal. You have no biological fact to support you. You have no social theory to support you. You have no philosophical theory to support you.

                The worse, because you dismiss without any reason, you propel the very force that will be your undoing. Yes, put on those blinder’s Anita. It is best you do not witness your own destruction, like a blindfold on a man about to be executed by a firing squad.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I give you the headline from HuffPo and The View the day MEN decide they have had enough of being ridiculed, emasculated, etc. etc…

  34. Just A Citizen says:


    You seem to have distorted the meaning of the word HYPOCRITE.

    To oppose taxes, or recognize that they are theft, but to pay those taxes to avoid having violence done upon oneself is not hypocrisy.

    Preaching for others to revolt and withhold taxes and suffer jail time then paying your own to avoid jail is hypocrisy.

    The real difference here is the words of a Philosopher vs. the words of an Activist. Not all philosophers are activists nor visa versa. Unfortunately, it is rare the both exist within a single person.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Before you go off half cocked…………. let me sum up my viewpoint this way:

  35. gmanfortruth says:

    A new thread has been posted!

%d bloggers like this: