Make The Protests Personal

tea-party-signsIt’s on, as the saying goes.  Organized protesters, paid agitators, violent Black Bloc Anarchist’s and the obviously poorly informed are taking to the streets, Town Hall meetings and literally shouting down those who are trying to fix the mess the Democrats have made over the last 8 years.  For those who voted against the Liberal and Establishment ideology, it’s time to step up and take this crap personally.  This is a call to action!  BRING BACK THE TEA PARTY!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    OY VEY!

  2. Just A Citizen says:

    Tea Party people from 8 years ago attending meetings and crying “Don’t take away my Obama Care.”

    Free Cookies, even the perception of free cookies, is corrosive to the human spirit.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I was watching some news scenes from a Town Hall somewhere near Pittsburgh. Generally speaking, Pittsburghers are Democrat. I saw the same “RESIST” signs as were at other protests throughout the country. Here’s the thing, I also saw the elderly, who would be on Medicade, whining about losing their insurance. Obviously, common sense is seriously lacking, because health insurance will NEVER go away. We had it without the ACA and we’ll have it after it’s gone.

      I’ll put it as plainly as possible. The Liberal message getting out is a serious LIE. It’s bullshit fear mongering. That is what needs to be changed and it can’t get changed with these idiot paid protesters shouting everyone down who is against the ACA. I’m just thinking we need a movement to counter the screamers and violent types.

      p.s. Not sure who you talking about doing the crying, but folks around these parts want it gone and gone fast.

      • “violent types” = Statists

        They don’t do it directly, of course. They are cowards who hire bullies to represent them, to force their will onto everyone and steal from them, destroy whole civilizations, etc.

        I agree that there needs to be a movement against them. They have to be stopped for the good of humanity. I have tried to reason with them. But there are a lot of them, and they are not at all reasonable. Most appear to lack common sense and intellect.

        They are a very dangerous breed, and we have a lot of work cut out if we are to defeat them. I know because I used to be one of them.

  3. Just A Citizen says:

    Point of interest regarding Town Hall demonstrations.

    I reported here two or three weeks back about how the Dems hijacked a local town hall held by State level elected officials. They were definitely organized and coached. And they never let anyone talk past one elected official saying Single Payer was not going to work.

    Liar was the cry, Do your Job, You represent us……… all the same rhetoric now popping up at US congress town halls.

    Now do these people have complaints and issues? You bet. But they are not the only constituents at these meetings nor within the congressional districts. The Republican Senators and Congressmen better figure out quick who is really their support or they will wind up backing out of eliminating the ACA. Then they will tick off their base and lose the next cycle.

    I would like to share how one State Senator handled the whole thing at a followup town hall on health care. After listening to the rhetoric she asked a pointed question.

    “How many of you believe we need a Single Payer system”? Everyone who had been chewing on her raised their hand. She said “OK, I understand your desires and will let people at the State Senate know how you feel.” Then she turned to those of us who had not raised our hands and asked what our priorities were for the legislature.

    Several of us said we did not want single payer, we did not want the ACA to continue and we did want the state to get focused on what if anything it can do to reduce actual medical costs and then prepare for a State health care plan independent of Federal Funding.

    This did not cause an immediate riot because the other side had gotten to completely vent and she solidified and acknowledged their view point. When the rest of us got to talk, finally, the others got to see they are not the only voices in the District. And some of us disagree.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Why a State plan? It’s just Single Payer at a lower level. Maybe an option outside of normal insurance, especially for the lower paid workers. I’m just not so sure that government and health care should be together. But that’s your State, so run with it if that works for ya’ll. 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Sorry G, I was not clear. Not a single payer State “plan” but a plan to address insurance needs and if funded by Govt. then only at the State level.

        The goal is to create a system that is not depending on any Federal funding. It will not be possible in the short run due to Medicaid and Medicare contributions to the State budget being so HUGE.

        There will almost certainly be some State funded or subsidized Insurance program for the poor. This is a problem due to cost but I see no way around it. Unless we can get our medical care costs back to what they were 20 years ago.

        The other problem is getting health insurance costs down because we don’t have a “pool” large enough to benefit from cost averaging. Idaho has only a little over 2 million people.

        I suggested an Interstate compact with surrounding Stated but recognize that our neighbors have far to many “requirements” in minimum coverage. So, as I suggested to the Senator, we may need to look to partner with States farther away..Like TEXAS.

        I also doubt that any “mandate” will be allowed here. The Dems want it badly and continue to misunderstand that auto insurance is not health insurance. That Senator lady did a great job of shutting down that argument by pointing out all the options she had if she wanted car insurance. Those options do not exist with health care.

        So maybe we will see the State legislate a variety of coverage options similar to the variety of auto insurance. That will drive cost down for the young and healthy. Leaving us to deal with the sick and poor.

        Then there is the issue of funding Medicaid for the mentally and physically disabled. The costs of those programs is big. And the Federal funds are used to cover them almost everywhere. Mobility of people across State lines becomes a real issue when you start looking at things like health care. Especially the disabled group. People working and paying taxes within a state can contribute to their State’s plan in some way.

        But the disabled have no way to make the money needed. And they can overwhelm a State budget if a bunch of them move. And nothing causes that to happen faster than word getting out about “Good programs”. People will relocate to get their family the service they need. Idaho does better than Montana and Washington. So we get people moving here for services. Oregon is better than Idaho. So they get a lot of people moving there from Washington and Nevada, as well as some from Idaho.

        This is what happens when you create Federal programs. It works against the idea of State lines by creating undo economic burden on poorer States. It all plays into the Mathius theory of Political Organization of the USA. Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy.

        • The way I see it, the only way to fix health care is to end it completely. Then start over with some common sense and without bleeding-heart liberals input.

          “Then there is the issue of funding Medicaid for the mentally and physically disabled.”

          Yes, this is a HUGE issue. The definition of “mentally” disabled needs to be redefined. I have a middle aged brother that is mentally disabled. He is severely autistic and has been from birth. He never was able to learn any speech. He grunts and screams and beats himself and beats on the walls. He functions at the level of a one year old, on good days. He is mentally disabled with my definition of the term. However, the 23 year old hood rat that uses and sells drugs, drinks himself into a coma every night, who is ABLE to speak and communicate and care for himself, but refuses to do so, is also “mentally” disabled and receives the same services as my brother. Doesn’t make sense to me.
          The definition of physical disability need redefined as well. Or at least the requirements for a physical disability.

          “People working and paying taxes within a state can contribute to their State’s plan in some way.”

          Why are the people working and paying taxes the only ones contributing? Why am I paying for services for the lazy bum, alcoholic, druggie hood rat? Everyone needs to be held accountable. If you don’t work, you don’t eat, you don’t get a monthly check, you don’t get medical services, you don’t get jack! People need to understand that their actions have consequences.

          “And nothing causes that to happen faster than word getting out about “Good programs”.”

          Isn’t THAT the truth! We get hordes of alcoholic, druggie, hood rats coming to this area because they were told there are so many “good programs” around here. Now I’m paying for more bums that refuse to take care of themselves and their families.

          I find it odd that people will relocate their whole family for free stuff but they won’t get off their lazy butt and go to work.

          Sorry for the rant, but this one hits home for me. There are too many leeches feeding off the system. The leeches need to be eliminated. The whole ‘system’ need to be rebuilt.

          • You are not alone, my friend, you are not alone.

            Here is the funny part. All these snowflake college kids and safe spaces and the interviews that I have seen…….they have absolutely no clue of the real world.,,,,, I cant wait until they get out of their “safe” zone and look for a job…..and then ask the boss….where is my safe zone on the days that I cannot handle work?

            • I am so glad that I do not interview any longer……By the way,,,,,is there anybody out there working somewhere that if the computer goes down…..that you can continue to work or is your whole job or the job that you do dependent upon computers?

              • We are dependent upon the internet. Everything is online, all files, all charts, all documentation….even clocking in and out is done online. The computers can be working, but if we lose internet connection we are dead in the water. There is a partial paper back-up system. I’m not sure the majority of employees have ever used paper or even know how.

                Interesting how an extended internet outage could cripple a lot of businesses. And a lot of people.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Imagine if the Globalist’s get their wish of a cashless society. Want to see a serious amount of violent riots, turn off the SNAP cards for 2 months. Want banks to collapse, hack and destroy all their files. Want to see society as a whole collapse, turn off the very thing that feeds technology….the power.

                All this really means is that those with the monopoly of violence can at any time hold considerable control of the people. This is why I bring up some of the fun conspiracy theories I bring up…..getting people to understand that many can come true, in short order. Think back about Trump saying the Fed’s will fix Chicago. Which reminds me……

              • “Imagine if the Globalist’s get their wish of a cashless society. Want to see a serious amount of violent riots, turn off the SNAP cards for 2 months. Want banks to collapse, hack and destroy all their files. Want to see society as a whole collapse, turn off the very thing that feeds technology….the power. ”

                The dollar is based off of debt, the promise of paying it back with future tax revenue, which all derives from labor, skill and production per unit of time. So base it off of time directly, without all the banking nonsense.

                It all boils down to time/productivity anyway.

  4. gmanfortruth says:
  5. gmanfortruth says:

    A few thoughts on the subject.

    The pooch is screwed and it is very unlikely that the government will remove itself from this subject.

    Healthcare costs will never go down, healthcare workers have to be paid, receive raises etc.
    All places where care is given require and extreme amount of cleanliness. Medical equipment and the companies that make them are pretty much the same. These products cost millions in many cases to produce. The issue of wages is a whole subject on it’s own.

    If the government will get out of the way, people can get a lot of these costs under control,, but it will take some work. I’ll use JAC land as an example. Organize, maybe County wide, maybe smaller, maybe bigger. Once the door is open, more will come running. Use our history of the Labor Movement and Unions as a guide. Once the initial number of people are in agreement, then begin by meeting with hospital leaders (this is where it all begins). Explain what is at stake to them, some examples:

    Our organization:

    Will not pay for insurance unless it is affordable to the group, and the policies are acceptable.
    Will pay hospitals and local medical professionals, at a reduced rate, and at the terms and conditions the group has determined (10 bucks for a doctor visit, 10 dollars a month for all hospital expenses).
    Will grow in numbers, people are fed up with the insurance industry.
    Will meet with hospital leaders and insurance leaders to work out a plan moving forward.
    Will have proper representation.
    Will negotiate in good faith.

    It works for business’s, it can work for the average person.

    • “If the government will get out of the way, people can get a lot of these costs under control,, but it will take some work.”

      Human nature won’t allow that, Gman, remember? People are unable to organize without violence.

      The whole healthcare industry would turn to compete chaos and everything would burn. There would be riots and all hell would break loose if the government got out of the way, right?.

      We NEED government to violate everyone, right? What would we ever do without government violence?

  6. gmanfortruth says:
  7. Why would anarchists waste time protesting, petitioning or negotiating the completely illegitimate?

    If you are an anarchist, it is because you value freedom and understand the state to be nothing but criminal. Protesting is like arguing with a burglar on how much of your property you are allowed to keep. Just shoot him. It is defense, not violence.

    Only the ignorant would characterize force against the state as “violence”, or as to deny the violence it imposes upon everyone. Force against the state is almost always defense.

    • There is a difference between ideology and practice.
      There is no point for any anarchist to be a martyr. Attacking the State is suicide.

      The best way for anarchists to advance freedom is in the battle of ideas.
      “Once an idea whose time has come, nothing can stand in its way!”

      Use “Truth against Power” not violence.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    The CT world is a buzz with talk of recent Wikileaks cryptic Tweets about “VAULT 7”. Here’s the low down and Tweets: http://heavy.com/tech/2017/02/what-is-vault-7-wikileaks-theories-vault7-tweets-photos-analysis-clues-twitter-who-where-when-why-how/

    The theories are many, from 9-11 to the Clinton’s, or both. Obviously a lead up to a document dump which is scheduled on or around Feb 19.

    Some fun little facts about the possibilities of the Clinton’s and 9-11 being related. Much of the planning for 9-11 happened under Bill’s Presidency. HRC’s campaign pin and sign pictures depicted an H with a red arrow through it.

  9. gmanfortruth says:
  10. http://anotherdayintheempire.com/trump-goes-war-iran/

    “Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how “kind” President Obama was to them. Not me!”

  11. Trump Makes Good on Campaign Promise to Kill the Families of Terrorists

    http://anotherdayintheempire.com/trump-makes-good-campaign-promise-kill-families-terrorists/

    “He didn’t mention the murder of Nawar, the eight year old girl, or any of the other women and children killed.”

  12. Things I would do to fix healthcare:
    1) Make HSA accounts available to all with no restrictions and liberal upper limit. HSA funds could be invested similar to 401K funds. This could be done individually or through the employer. Risky investments should not be allowed. High expense ratios should also not be allowed.
    2) Reduce insurance to catastrophic coverage only.
    a. Patient pays and can negotiate rates.
    b. When stop loss is reached, the patient documents that fact and sends the documentation to the insurer. Only then does the insurance company get involved.
    3) Make all medical expenses tax deductible.
    4) Allow groups to form to buy insurance in bulk.
    5) Eliminate government mandates.
    6) Encourage the use of medical databases for easy sharing of test results and other medical information. The consumer should have access to these records.
    7) Store critical medical information on a chip embedded in a credit card for easy check in at medical facilities and quick access to recent and pertinent past history including current drug regime.
    8) Provide consumer with itemized medical bills.
    9) Identify the indigent who cannot afford healthcare and provide them with a card (like Medicaid) that gives them nearly free access to a government funded health facility. The patient will be charged a nominal fee to discourage over use.
    a. Defund Planned Parenthood and use the money to fund general health clinics.
    10) Penalties for those found cheating the system, patients or providers should be severe.
    11) Reform the tort laws. Limit awards. Loser pays cost of other party. If providers are found negligent, then there should be severe consequences including heavy fines, loss of licenses and possible jail time.
    12) Corporate executives of insurance companies and health providers are personally liable for the ethics of their organization.
    13) Establish a health institute or arm of NIH to study and disseminate information on cheap solutions to medical problems. Our medical professionals or woefully ignorant of solutions to problems that do not involve expensive drugs. Similarly there are too many over the counter solutions that do not have the proper research to back their claims.
    14) Establish internationals standards for qualifying new drugs and work in cooperation with other 1st world countries to qualify drugs more vigorously but without the need to qualify them individually in each country.
    15) The individual insurance market in any given state is a group of the whole with uniform rates.
    a. Lifetime limits can apply.
    b. Lifetime limits once reached would qualify the patient for #9 above.
    c. Insurance companies must accept all applicants or document why not so they can qualify for #9 above.
    16) Medicare payments for the young would be diverted to their HSA plans. There would be a transition period for phasing out Medicare. Those 60 and over at the commencement of this plan would continue to contribute to Medicare at the current rates until retirement. They would receive full benefits. Those 50 to 60 at the commencement of this plan would divert 25% to the HSA and 75% Medicare until retirement. They would receive 75% benefit from Medicare. Those 40 to 50 would divert 50% to Medicare and receive benefits at 40%. Those from 30 to 40 would send 25% to Medicare and the rest to HSA. At retirement they would get 10% of current payments. Those under 30 would contribute nothing to Medicare and receiver nothing. I have not worked the math out for this so the groups and amounts might change but you get the idea that we would wean people off Medicare over the next 30-40 years.
    17) Foreign nationals (non-legal visitors or visa visitors) that do not pay their medical bills will have the bill sent to their government. Lack of payment will be cause for reduction of foreign aid or some other asset seizure.
    18) Children born to non-legal US residents or visa visitors will not be US citizens. The costs of such children will be borne by the parents or by their government. Paternity can be settled by DNA tests.

    There are other things that can be done that do not require massive government interference in the market place.

    • Jim Duncan says:

      Eliminate the monopoly on the initiation of force and principle element of coercion with the threat of death, and those problems would resolve themselves.

      The healthcare industry would then be free to meet the demands of the people instead of the demands of government. Prices would drop, quality and availability would increase.

      There would be no need to rationalize such nonsense as government theft, infanticide, imaginary lines or illegal humans.

    • Hmmmm…interesting.

      1. Would you make the HSA pretax only to be taxed at use? How would you treat the income growth from investment? And how would you propose making sure that the funds are used for medical only? Woukd you make HSA age dependent? For example, I am 69 this year and ineligble for HSA.
      2. Amend to negotiable but patient responsible. If you want full coverage and are willing to pay for it, you should be able to do so….I get the idea of catastrophic coverage being a cheaper method but make it a negotiable deal.
      3. ok
      4. Already being done.
      5. ok
      6. Definitely against except where the patient says it is ok. Optional. I get get idea behind it to eliminate duplicate efforts but I do not want a national database.
      7. Ok with reservations.
      8. ok
      9. The idea is good and even feasible….might think about having a maximum amount based on usage. Implementation would need to be worked out.
      10. No quarter….they are out of the system. No second chances.
      11. Do that right away. Texas did it…and the ambulance chasers are pretty much gone. Insurance rates dropped dramatically.
      12. Need more input on this one.
      13. Need more input on this one, also.
      14. Eliminate the FDA and this would probably happen.
      15. Would this not be solved with total deregulation of the insurance and heatlh applications market?
      16. There are numerous concepts like this already proposed but they are met with defeat in Congress.
      17. Maintenance nightmare…..but can see something like this.
      18. Just eliminate the anchor baby program…this will solve itself.

      • D13 thanks for the response to my random thoughts.

        1) The prime purpose of HSA’s is to build a nest egg for the younger to replace Medicare which would go away. There are many ways to skin the cat. I would prefer to make it totally tax free but it could be treated like a Roth, taxed going in but not out. If health expenses are not taxed, then the young would be incentivized to pay current expenses from their general funds and not the HSA thus allowing it to build. There would be no age dependency on HSA’s but us old folken already have Medicare so our needs are mostly met. As for with drawls, they could be itemized (documented) on our income tax returns. Mostly it would be the honor system but subject to IRS audit which scares the hell out of most of us.

        2) Yes this is what I meant. The consumer can negotiate the price. Currently if a provider accepts Medicare or Medicaid, they cannot drop their prices below those that the government gets. I want the government out of the insurance business. Consumers should always be free to buy more expensive and comprehensive coverage if they desire.

        4) Group purchases are not universal by states. If the market is truly free, then individuals and small business should be able to form groups to purchase blocks of insurance.

        6) I too do not want a government run database or a database the government has access to. Electronic records are the way of the future and they do speed and reduce the costs of healthcare. We should embrace these new technologies but ensure that they are secure and not part of a massive universal database.

        7) A limited database embedded on a chip in a credit card would speed up admittance to healthcare treatment plus provide the doctor with a quick look at the most recent and most important medical history. It is an expanded version of a medic alert bracelet. This information could be put on a modern phone, but I would not want it there. Too easily hacked or lost. Keep the info off line.

        9) Yes the details need to be worked out. I do not want government funded health insurance or government run clinics. The government can fund clinics or other providers to provide services for those holding the medical need cards. Currently hospitals recover indigent care by padding the bills of other sick people. That’s a double hit if you are unfortunate enough to be sick. Indigent care should come from the general public.

        10) Agreed, I said severe. I hate cheaters.

        11) Agreed play by Texas rules.

        12) Goes with I hate cheaters. We just witnessed the bankers and FM & FM execs causing major problems and not being held personally responsible. Corp. execs should be personally responsible for the ethics and legalities of their corporations. That means personal fines and jail time plus similar severe punishment for the corporation. If you a__ is on the line, you think twice about cheating.

        13) There are many cheap solutions to significant health issues. For example, my wife is diabetic. No medical practitioner ever told us about cinnamon. It is not a cure but it dramatically reduces the need and improves the efficacy of insulin. I discovered this a few years ago on my own. It works and I had the charts to prove it. When the doctors saw cinnamon on her med list they asked what it was for. They had no idea. Drug companies have no incentive to invent cinnamon. But the government run health research agencies do and can have a goal to find cheap widely applicable solutions and to properly document and teach the same.

        14) This will not happen without a concerted effort by the major countries involved. I see a proliferation of safety standards for electrical and electronic equipment in hazardous areas. There is very little effort made to consolidate these standards so that suppliers can test their products to a single standard that has universal acceptance. The drug industry should have such a system since it is in the worldwide interests of all to have safe and tested drugs at the lowest possible costs.

        15) The insurance market should be mostly deregulated. Insurance companies cannot be expected to have no stop loss for them or to be forced to accept all applicants. For those that exceed the individual stop loss, the insurance company should be required to document and assist the consumer to get a government medical card that allows admittance to the government funded clinics. A pre-existing condition could be defined as an individual who has met the stop loss. Until that is met, the insurance company should not be allowed to discriminate.

        16) I would not abruptly end Medicare since too many seniors and near seniors have paid into it. I know the system is in trouble but continue a failed system will not make the problems go away. We need to wean people off the system while providing them an alternate system that they own. I am open to suggestions on how to do this.

        17) I do not want to pay care for foreign nationals here illegally or just visiting. They should be the responsibility of the their home countries.

        18) Agreed, I thought that is what I said, no more anchor babies.

    • T-Ray,

      Whoa! Complex.

      How about just “allow the free market to work”.
      It works in providing food pretty well.
      It will work fine in providing health care.

      • No it is not complex and it is mostly free market. I do not agree with government mandates for minimum coverage of medical procedures.

  13. One yo yo, or two? ROFL!! sorry

  14. Someone with more brains than I……..please tell me what the problem is with school choice and a school voucher program?

    • The problem is force. The problem is that your whole system of organization is premised on the principle function of coercion with a threat of death.

      Forced education, forced healthcare, forced infrastructure, forced communications, forced family life, forced consumerism, forced this, forced that, forced, etc, etc, etc…

      • I see no force anywhere. You arenot forced into public schools, you are not forced into private schools…..vouchers, from what I have been reading, are designed to help all children, regardless of race and or income levels to get to better schools….to give them a choice. You have a choice to home school if you wish…..so where is the force.

        The down side that I see to this is from the teachers unions….not the parents. anyone have knowledge?

        • The force is in the pretense of what it prescribes or allows. It simply isn’t up to government to allow you or your children anything. Government does not sign humans into existence. Humans happen when a human female egg is fertilized with human male sperm, most commonly through sexual intercourse.

          There is a great big framework of edicts concerning America’s children, all of which are ultimately backed with a threat of death. If this was not so, people could educate/raise their children however they like.

          What I am trying to say is that the problem is government has hijacked the children with forced prescribed parenting and education, and a tax structure that enslaves them well into adulthood for generations, …not to mention all the other countless laws they are taught to accept.

          • “If this was not so, people could educate/raise their children however they like.” Smoke screen!

            You are free to educate or not educate your children as you see fit….under no threat. Convince me of the threat. A true threat of death, please.

            • Jim Duncan says:

              State and federal governments have a large body of edicts called laws that prescribe standards and practices of education and parenting. Those laws are ultimately backed with a threat of murder for noncompliance.

              If you do not register your children with the state and prove you are educating them, or doing so as prescribed, they send people to your home to confirm it and prescribe a solution by force. If you do not comply, there is a long list of increased punishments for noncompliance that ultimately results in being murdered

              Example; You will register your child with the state and send them to government schools. If you do not, someone will come to your home and tell you to. If you do not comply, they will kidnap your children and cage you while your children are subjected to various abuses. If you do not allow them to do so, they will make you comply by force, up to and including deadly force, and send your children to be subjected to various abuses, and go to school as it dictates, anyway.

              • I went to the guidance office, informed them I would be homeschooling from that point forward, signed a paper which un enrolled my son, and began homeschooling the following Monday. It was a five minute deal. Never once did I ever have contact with any state official. Never had to check in, never had to pass a state test, nothing…no contact whatsoever. And we’re both still alive and not in jail. Son received a GED at 16.

                Check out the HSLDA for Michigan, you will see I’m right.

                Now go rethink your entire position. <<< Your words not mine.

              • Anita,

                I think the issue for Jimmy here is that even that small burden (signing an unenrollment doc) is a bridge too far.

                If the world in which you and I live, this means a small hoop to jump through. After which we are required to provide some level of education for our children and to not physically endanger / neglect them. As far as I’m aware, any sane person would consider these reasonable requirements of parenting. And, further, that any parent unwilling or unable to do so should not retain custody of said children.

                But Jimmy sees it differently. He see big gov’ment with its jackboot on his throat controlling and proscribing his parental rights. From a “first principles” perspective (if you stipulate his principles and not ours), he’s correct. It is a threat of violence (although his escalation to “murder” is prima facie absurd unless deliberately courting confrontation) in order to coerce compliance… but of a standard which he should not find objectionable or onerous except insofar as it is externally imposed rather than self-directed.

                All that is to say (and correct me if I’m wrong here), that Jimmy isn’t really objecting to the requirement that he educate his kids or keep them safe. He’s objecting to the idea that someone is holding a figurative gun to his head and making him do so.

              • Jim Duncan says:

                Granted, there will be variations among states. And Michigan makes it ‘easy’. But let’s put things into perspective, shall we?

                “I went to the guidance office, informed them I would be homeschooling from that point forward, signed a paper which un enrolled my son, and began homeschooling the following Monday.”

                Translation; I contacted a state official and filled out paperwork notifying the state.

                What if you had simply withdrew him with no notification of your business? What would have happened when the state discovered he was not enrolled in any public/private schools?

                “Never had to check in, never had to pass a state test, nothing…no contact whatsoever. It was a five minute deal. Never once did I ever have contact with any state official.”

                Translation; I do not consider public schools to be state institutions and understand their employees to be paid through private donations.

                “And we’re both still alive and not in jail. Son received a GED at 16.”

                Good for you for survival through obedience.

                “Check out the HSLDA for Michigan, you will see I’m right.”

                HSLDA proves my point, specifically the D and A. Defense against what? Advocates for what? They are an organization fighting for legal control over children, that would not be necessary if not for the forced edicts.

                The very fact that the state has a say at all demonstrates my point, as the state is really just force.

                “Now go rethink your entire position. <<< Your words not mine."

                Who needs to rethink it? Need I start posting thousands of edicts that are all forced? I really do not want to go through all of that.

              • Understood. I’m pointing out that the world isn’t as difficult to navigate as he portrays it.

              • Of course it’s not.

                Unless you make it that difficult.

                He’s cruising for confrontation – refusing to give an inch to save a mile. It’s why he refers – eloquently, I think – to “survival through obedience.”

                Any sane individual will give the inch to sidestep a confrontation which results in “murder.” But Jim sees that sidestep (signing the document) as an untenable capitulation. So he would rather butt heads with the United States government – and we know how that ends if when push comes to shove.

                ::shrug::

              • http://www.wkbw.com/news/was-buffalo-mom-jailed-over-homeschooling-decision

                Mathius,

                Now I can’t speak for Jimmy, but this is an example of ‘force’ by gov’ment. This and personal experience are reasons why I agree with our anarchist friends in this area.
                I guess it just depends on who you are, or how lucky you get, or maybe depends on which tin god is in charge in your area. I dunno.

            • D13,
              No, you are not.
              You are – a the point of a gun – forced to educate your children.
              At anytime the State believes this education is not sufficient, they will – at a point of a gun – take your children and educate them as the State sees fit.

              Threat of death?

              If you resist the State in enforcing its decree, the ultimate end is death.

              To pretend ANY law (and I mean ANY LAW) does not have obedience or death as the final outcome is naive.

              • BF says : “You are – a the point of a gun – forced to educate your children.”

                Ok, I will defer for now. I will check with the State. I am unaware of any mandate to educate your children through the State.

                Are you going to go as far and say that any requirement to degree status is a mandate of the State? A GED is a mandate of the State? A high school diploma is a mandate of the State?

          • There is a great big framework of edicts concerning America’s children, all of which are ultimately backed with a threat of death.

            Hiya, Jim!

            Jimbo! Jimmy! Mind if I call you Jimmy?

            You see, Jimmy, we have this thing called “home schooling.” Also private schools and religious schools.

            If you are so adverse to the lessons being taught in public schools, you are free to do it yourself. Oh, sure, it’s harder – it’s a lot of work – and you’ll probably have to bush up on lessons you’d long forgotten if you want to produce a well-rounded student. But the government grants a great deal of latitude to teach your kids as you wish under the banner of home school.*

            Now, I’m not going to get into the argument of whether the government is the source or not of the right to teach your kids (it’s not), but you seem to be (and maybe its just my inference) implying that the government is mandating a specific education for your kids – and it’s not.

            The power of peer pressure and the structured authority of the school system is.. well, powerful. While, certainly, I am free to teach my wee ones whatever I like, if it is contradicted by the “official” lesson plan, I have may have mixed results in asserting my lesson over theirs. To that end, if I disapprove strongly enough of what the school is teaching, I’ll pull my kids and either put them in private school or home school them.

            The government is handing you a free** education for your kids and you’re objecting that it’s not the education you want. So don’t use it. No one is putting a gun to your head.

            ——–

            * In this big government liberal’s opinion, far too much.
            **hahahahahahhahahaha! “free”… haahahhaahaha!

            • Jim Duncan says:

              “government grants”

              Straw-man position. Government FORCES. Government does not create children.

              Now go rethink your entire position.

              • You probably should have read my next paragraph…

                “Now, I’m not going to get into the argument of whether the government is the source or not of the right to teach your kids (it’s not)”

                Insofar as the government “grants” anything, it is tantamount to saying that, insofar as the government controls basically every aspect of your life under threat of fiat force (whether confiscation of property / wealth or physical harm / imprisonment), the government has “granted” you an freedom from that threat.

                Now, try not to get hung up on technicalities. I’ve had enough of that kind of fight with Elisheba and Black Flag. I don’t want to have to define every term into neurotic specifics in order to have a conversation. You know damned well what I mean when I say the government “grants” you the freedom to opt to home school. I mean, they aren’t actively coercing under threat.

                Let’s not play semantic games.

              • Jim Duncan says:

                “You probably should have read my next paragraph… Now, I’m not going to get into the argument of whether the government is the source or not of the right to teach your kids (it’s not)”

                Why not? Why not address the problem? Everyone wants to discuss things, presumably in the interest of solutions and improvement. Yet you do not want to actually address the root issue? Did I miss something, ..are we simply venting? What is the point?

                “Insofar as the government “grants” anything, it is tantamount to saying that, insofar as the government controls basically every aspect of your life under threat of fiat force (whether confiscation of property / wealth or physical harm / imprisonment), the government has “granted” you an freedom from that threat.”

                So you understand that “grant” is a falsehood. Good.

                It can simply be stated as “force”, no need for all that other stuff. As a general rule, any word to describe a government act can be interchanged with the word “force”.

                “Now, try not to get hung up on technicalities. I’ve had enough of that kind of fight with Elisheba and Black Flag. I don’t want to have to define every term into neurotic specifics in order to have a conversation.”

                You wouldn’t have to if you spoke in a realistic or consistent context. Understand how confusing you are when you exchange opposites and misuse words. Using a word loosely is one thing, …

                “You know damned well what I mean when I say the government “grants” you the freedom to opt to home school. I mean, they aren’t actively coercing under threat.”

                You mean that it grants, like a burglar grants you your property or the way a stranger grants you the right to live how you choose, which is not granting anything.

                “Let’s not play semantic games.”

                This is not about semantics. This is about reality. Who owns you? Who’s responsibility are your children? Where do they come from?

                I give you permission to breathe? I grant you the privilege of deciding what you want for dinner? I will allow you to earn money?

              • Jimmy,

                Why not? Why not address the problem? Everyone wants to discuss things, presumably in the interest of solutions and improvement. Yet you do not want to actually address the root issue? Did I miss something, ..are we simply venting? What is the point?

                Because I’ve had this debate.

                Many, many times.

                With one of the most stubborn human beings I have ever had the honor of knowing.

                If they ever build a monument to him, I assume it will be carved out of solid oak.

                I’ve been duking it out here on SUFA as one of the only liberals for the better part of a decade now.

                I am well aware of the fundamental differences we have with regards to the legitimacy of government fiat power and coercive force. I am well aware of our differences as regarding the nature and or origins of rights (though your personal perspective may vary, I can comfortably say I’ve got the gist).

                But by refusing to engage on the topic by always forcing the conversation at hand back to first principles (on which we disagree!), we can never discuss anything BUT first principles.

                You wouldn’t have to if you spoke in a realistic or consistent context. Understand how confusing you are when you exchange opposites and misuse words

                I beg to differ.

                I exist in the real world.

                I exist in a world where the government is a great thing doing real work with – by and large – the consent of the governed. Where the government exercises real power and real control, and where you insistence of its illegitimacy is wholly irrelevant. Where government is both far-from-perfect and far-from-perfectly-evil.

                I exist in a world where it is moot, and often counterproductive, to try to consider questions in an ideal anarchist scenario which does not, has never, and probably never will exist. You exist in a world where you insist on couching any discussion of the real work in terms of your fantasy land. How, then, can we ever have a conversation about anything but first principles of your dream land?

                I get it – I really do – government bad, m’kay. Got it.

                But let’s move along. Bad or not, it exists. And the question isn’t whether it exists, but how it exists – in the real world – and what (if anything) we can/should do about about it.

              • Mathius, Mathius, Mathius.

                If you CANNOT discuss first principles, then your argument waves in the wind like fallen leaves. You merely pick and choose when you roll and when you ride, and when you dodge.

                If YOU cannot establish a root principle from which your argument rises, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

            • Jim Duncan says:

              And then there is this;

              They own your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren, great great great grandchildren, great great great great grandchildren, great great great great great grandchildren, great great great great great great grandchildren, etc, etc, ..as you demand.

            • Government in the real world.

              It is utter evil and the single greatest curse upon mankind.

              That is a given, and by ALL arguments from principle, can be called a fact.

              Now WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

              You either shrug your shoulders and live with it.
              or
              You work to dismiss it.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      My best guess is if it succeeds it would destroy the current Communist successes at indoctrinating our youth. Why do I believe this way? Because the failures of the public education system is so blaring it can’t be just brushed away with a straight face.

  15. Moonbeam Brown is asking Trump for emergency money due to the recent storms. The storms of the last six weeks have not been unusual for CA. Yes there has been mud slides, down trees (I lost 4), power outages but no significant flooding. We are not in a disaster area. The problems at the Oroville dam are mostly due to negligence. They have known that the main spillway had problems for 3 years and did nothing since all the money has been diverted to Monnbeam’s tunnels and train.

  16. gmanfortruth says:
    • This is why I pay no attention to these types of incidents. People who wear masks. Makes the protests pretty stupid…..and they are beginning to lose support. No one but the media really pays attention much.

    • Jim Duncan says:

      It demonstrates the illegitimacy and hypocrisy, as well as brutality, of government.

      They were pulled over for something illegitimate and/or harassed(probably true).
      They are free to carry guns around, and the state of Michigan recognizes this.
      The government system recommends the option of complaining as a means of resolution.

      So they carry a gun with them to complain, as recommended, and the pigs threatened to kill them over it?

      In Michigan, regardless of what the law says or whether you did any harm to anyone, if you mind your own business, do as you are instructed or allowed, you will be harassed and threatened by government terrorists.

  17. Colonel,

    Paging our resident expert on classified information: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319038-dem-senator-calls-out-trump-for-leaving-key-to-classified-info

    Your thoughts, oh sage one?

    • My thoughts, first blush ( understand that I will check this out immediately )…

      1. The key in the bag on the POTUS desk is not a “VIOLATON” of security unless the contents were open in plain site. That said, if I walked trhough my staff office and I saw a security bag ( even a burn bag ) left with a key exposed, there would be hell to pay simply because of the oversight. I would not line them up to be shot but my verbal retort would not be something you would say at a prayer breakfast.

      2. I, personally, have never left a key in a classified bag or briefcase.

      3. It would be a major breach of security to have walked out and left the bag un-attended, even in te oval office. It would, likewise, be a major breach of security to have left the contents out in the open for non classified persons to read.

      4. It would be a major breach of security if the POTUS walks out of the oval office leaving his personal aide in there to even guard it with a key in it.

      Now, a key in a classifed bag does not mean that it is open. You cannot simply turn the lock and get your documents out without taking the key out.

      But my thoughts are this….you do not do this. No violation ( as yet ) but not a good thing. Not in my realm, anyway but will check on the exact answer for you. Give me an hour.

      • Thank you.

        Now, that being said, I worked in a firm that was… well.. nuts about security. I mean nuts. They’re actually relatively famous for it within the industry.

        I am not aware of secured bags being used (although it would not have surprised me), but I do know there were locked cabinets. And leaving a key out – even if you are at the desk, was grounds for formal reprimand. In fact, you’d probably find yourself sitting down with your manager (and his manager) and having a conversation about why you don’t take security seriously.

        And that’s at a hedge fund. In operations. Where – truth be told – there’s not really anything that sensitive happening. If you did that in research or trading or HR, you’d almost certainly have been summarily fired, then escorted out under armed guard.

        If I scale that up to POTUS, well… I’ll wait for your answer.

        • The official answer is: If the material is under the auspicies of the person to whom it was intended and said material is contained within the proper safeguards ( meaning the contents not in plain sight ), there is no Security violation. ( Unlike Patreus and Clinton, who left documents in plain sight ( Patreus ) and leaving classified material un-attended ( Clinton ).

          Now, I will refer you to Executive Order 13526 entitled “Classified National Security Information Memorandum” and DoDM 5200.01-V3, February 24, 2012. (amended).

          All security operations other than DOD are using the DOD as a guideline. Since the POTUS did not relinquish nor was out of sight of the classified material, there is no VIOLATION of security nor BREACH of security. Merely having the courier bag in plain sight with the key still in it is not an official problem (with me it would be). In addition, I would imagine that this particular courier bag was the double lock type….key and combination. I cannot tell by this picture….usually the locked courier bags have a key and a 4 digit combination lock.

          In the real world, away from the POTUS desk, the SUFA’s resident Colonel would be having a rather large “cow”. If I were the Military Aide that is with the POTUS basically 24/7, I would probably be fired because I would have immediately pointed out that while not a Security Breach….it is a failure of protocol, in my opinion….we military types are pretty hyper about protocol.

          SO, Mr President……..take the goddamned key out……ok?

          I mean, come on….even the DPM in his new nuclear submarine would not leave a key in the open ( unless it was to the supply of grog ).

    • gmanfortruth says:
  18. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Hey Jim!

    Down here!

    Question for you.

    We are where we are – today, here, in the real world. Here, now, today, the institutions of government – at all levels – exist. There are real buildings full of real people doing real things. Despite their inherent illegitimacy, they still exist and wield power (read force to compel compliance). They are backed by people who will die to protect them and, more saliently, kill to protect them.

    So….

    (A) How do you envision reaching an anarchist utopia from here and (B) how do you envision such a society functioning (eg, how is “crime” handled, how are externalities handled, how is the peace maintained, how are disputes adjudicated, do you recognize any sort of “intellectual property,” at what point can you morally “defend” yourself and how, etc.)?

    • Really…..you are going to subject your self to he answers you are about to get?

      • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Y’AAAARRRGGG!

        Unrelated: I don’t suppose you happen to know where the Hammer is berthed, do you? I mean, this Ohio-class is nice, but it’s no Spanish Galleon.

    • Jim Duncan says:

      That’s classified.

    • 1) No such thing as “utopia” (and if you ever read anything, Pirate, you know utopia ABSOLUTELY DEMANDS THE STATE to enforce EVERYONE to think the same, believe the same, look the same, have the same ideas. So an anarchist “utopia” is an oxymoron.

      2) As all things in freedom, the PEOPLE FIGURE IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES. You have this constant bizarre idea that “there must be a plan”. Yet, all you are demanding is that there is some “central set of brainics” out there capable of thinking for everyone else, so to provide OVER AND ABOVE THEIR OWN, NATURAL and ORGANIC METHODOLOGIES some “design” over human affairs.

      Go read Hayek and “self organizing systems”.

  19. Jim Duncan says:

    @ Mathius

    “But by refusing to engage on the topic by always forcing the conversation at hand back to first principles (on which we disagree!), we can never discuss anything BUT first principles.”

    In the real world, it starts with first principles. Anything based on a false, faulty, or incomplete premise, will inevitably produce that which is false, faulty, or incomplete. Thus first principles must be sound. If they are not, they must be addressed, hence why it always goes back to first principles, and of course, core values.

    “I beg to differ.”

    Translation; I deny reality. Watch how I rationalize it with the following…

    “I exist in the real world. I exist in a world where the government is a great thing doing real work with – by and large – the consent of the governed.”

    Objection; It rules by geography and force, not consent. If it were about consent, force would not be part of it, and/or it would rule by membership. “by and large” recognizes those who do not consent.

    “Where the government exercises real power and real control, and where you insistence of its illegitimacy is wholly irrelevant.”

    Translation; rules by force.

    Irrelevance is arguable.

    “Where government is both far-from-perfect and far-from-perfectly-evil.”

    It is systematic violence, and violence is evil.

    “I exist in a world where it is moot, and often counterproductive, to try to consider questions in an ideal anarchist scenario which does not, has never, and probably never will exist. You exist in a world where you insist on couching any discussion of the real work in terms of your fantasy land. How, then, can we ever have a conversation about anything but first principles of your dream land?”

    If you do not address first principles as per a realistic context, you will continue to argue a dream world whereby you are not a human being.

    “I get it – I really do – government bad, m’kay. Got it.”

    If you really do get it, and you still vote and support the state, then you are admitting to willful engagement and support of terrorism, crimes against humanity, the systematic violence of everyone, to include myself.

    You are essentially making a formal declaration of physical war upon me. If your terrorist organization allowed me to opt-out by default, then this would not be so.

    “But let’s move along. Bad or not, it exists. And the question isn’t whether it exists, but how it exists – in the real world – and what (if anything) we can/should do about about it.”

    It exists in the real world under a fictitious pretense. Whatever the form, it is not real, but still forced. What to do about it starts with recognizing the problem (that I have already stated repeatedly), that it is indeed criminal, evil, terrorism and absolutely completely unacceptable.

    Next is complete rejection thereof, followed by implementation of peaceful means of accomplishing societal goals, replacement systems if you will.

    The primary roadblock is stupid people, people who have attached their ego to a system of violence and destruction, and those who are so selfish and/or evil they support it anyway.

    • The primary roadblock is stupid people, people who have attached their ego to a system of violence and destruction, and those who are so selfish and/or evil they support it anyway.

      Well now…

      Just out of curiosity….

      Am I stupid?

      Or evil?

      Or is it possible, however unlikely you deem it to be, that I am well intentioned and and have reached an independent conclusion that there must be sacrifices to your almighty rights (and mine as well) in the interest of the greater good and that, further, the greater good of the human race trumps the private rights of individuals? Understand I do not ask you to agree with the foregoing, but merely recognize that they may be the sincere beliefs of a competent and well-meaning individual who is not – wholly – irrational.

      In other words, are you capable of seeing my viewpoint even while disagreeing with it. Or are you myopic to the point of blindness due to an obsession with your perfect world such that you cannot even conceive of a nuanced alternative.

      • Jim Duncan says:

        Evil.

        You know the difference and choose to violate my rights, rationalizing justification by determining the value of my life for me as per your values. You are essentially, by order of reason, saying that you have a right to force your will onto me, to be my proxy master, because you know better than I do what is best for me and my life.

        You are a criminal and terrorist by definition. The right to defense applies. I, and those like me who do not consent to your violence, have a natural inalienable right to defense against you and your organization by whatever means necessary or available.

        • Unlike Jim, I do not think you evil.
          I do think you IGNORANT and self-centered.

          When most men are confronted between an universal good, but personal harm, they will avoid the personal harm. This is not necessarily evil. It is merely self-interest.

          Civilization depends on an high intelligence.

          It takes no intelligence to demand this order:
          1) Family
          then
          2) Me
          then
          3) Anyone else.

          You are a fellow who would throw overboard another man’s child out of a life boat if it meant to save your own. This “civilization IQ” level is about 80.

          When a civilized man (civilization IQ over 100) is in the same situation, he would not.

          So you have no problem forcing other men, at the point of a gun, to provide you unearned benefits, ESPECIALLY if you are NOT the man using the gun, but one of proxy.

          The challenge you have to overcome is:
          If you agree to use a force of proxy violence to get what you want, YOU WILL BE SUBJECTED to the force of violence by proxy by others to get what they want.

          In your mental confusion, you like the former but hate the latter. You do not question the use of violence at all. All you argue is who gets to use the proxy of violence.

    • If you really do get it, and you still vote and support the state, then you are admitting to willful engagement and support of terrorism, crimes against humanity, the systematic violence of everyone, to include myself.

      Objection! Jumping to conclusions.

      I get it. I really do.

      BUT I don’t agree.

      You are so enthralled with your beautifully simplistic world of black-and-white absolutely that you seem to believe that merely understanding your viewpoint must inherently translate to agreement.

      “Oh, if only those stupid sheep could understand the thoughts of my magnificent superior brain, then they would all come around and agree with me.”

      I understand a lot of things I don’t personally believe.
      I understand how a person can view homosexuality as evil. But I don’t agree. Does understanding their viewpoint me and I have to side with them?
      I understand how people can believe marijuana should be illegal. But I don’t agree. Does understanding their viewpoint me and I have to side with them?
      I understand how people can believe prostitution should be illegal. But I don’t agree. Does understanding their viewpoint me and I have to side with them?
      I understand how people can believe Trump has their interests at heart. But I don’t agree. Does understanding their viewpoint me and I have to side with them?

      Here’s a shocking idea. It is possible for rational people to disagree on principles. Your precious bubble is not so sparkingly stuperific that all who gaze upon it must instantly convert – zombie-like – to your beliefs.

      I do not accept that you are right. Understanding you does not change that. So, no, I reject your assertion as JUVENILE that my comprehension of your viewpoint and subsequent support for an alternative position translates in “willful engagement […] of terrorism.

      What are you, 14? Let me guess? Your social studies teacher gave you a self-study assignment after she kicked you out for constantly disrupting class with asinine objections about the illegitimacy of government. You tried to found the young anarchist club, but couldn’t get enough members, so now it’s just you and the weird kid who eats glue and picks his nose sitting around during lunch period while he uncomprehendingly stares at you talking about the plight of the proletariat. You’re not on the honor roll, but of course, your mother assures you it’s because school isn’t challenging enough for her gifted little boy. You can’t get a member of the opposite sex to give you the time of day, no, not even when wearing your finest fedora, though of course it’s only because they are too shallow to understand that they should be with a deep thinker like you.

      Grow up. I’m sick of you pretentious wannabe anarchists living in your perfect fantasy dream worlds and calling the rest of us dump or willfully ignorant or evil or criminal or sheep or sheeple for not agreeing with you. Here’s a shock, Camus, there are more of us than there are of you – and it’s not just because we’re all morons, bleatingly accepting the status quo. Some of us have given this some serious thought and reached a different conclusion.

      We’re not morons and you’re not special.

      • Jim Duncan says:

        You cannot disagree with me. I argue immaculate premise. Disagreement with reality is called denial.

        Start with the immaculate premise of reality. What is reality? From there, define the part of reality that is biological. What is human?

        Once we get to that part, we can continue onto human socialization.

        • You cannot disagree with me.

          Of course I can disagree with you, you pretentious middle schooler.

          I argue immaculate premise.

          You argue absolutes that you alone get to declare as unquestionable diamonds of sparkling truth. The world does not function that way.

          Oh, look at me, I speak of divine truth. Behold my special insight. Marvel at my wisdom as I claim the corner on truth. It is I alone who know the truth, unquestionable, unchallengable. All who would speak otherwise blaspheme.

          Whoa that the world does not listen to me because of my youth. They’ll see when I get older. When I grow up, the world will know me as one of the great philosophers. No. The Greatest philosopher of all time. Move over Nietzsche! I have stared into the abyss and seen the light. Why aren’t you people listening to me! I know the answers! I’m special, damnit! I don’t care if the class bell did ring – this is important – I’m trying to tell you how the world really works! WAKE UP SHEEPLE! WHY WON’T ANYBODY LISTEN TO ME!!!1!! O_o

          Disagreement with reality is called denial.

          You. Do. Not. Speak. For. Reality.

          You do not get to unilaterally declare the nature of reality any more than I do.

          I declare that the Earth is flat and that green is now red. What? You dare disagree with me? Well that’s called denial!! Heathen.

          Once we get to that part, we can continue onto human socialization.

          It’s good to know you’ve written out a syllabus for my education, Professor Jimmy. I assume you’ve filed it safely in your Trapper Keeper.

          But you know what? I think I’ll pass. I don’t care to engage further with you. An overexcited and self-impressed juvenile is not worth engaging in conversation when they think they have the world figured out and the rest of us are morons for not going along.

          Maybe you’ll have a clearer head when you’re done with your after school activities and had a snack. I think your mom packed you some string cheese – your favorite!

          Maybe after you’ve had a little nap, we can try again.

          • Jim Duncan says:

            “Of course I can disagree with you, you pretentious middle schooler.”

            You cannot disagree with reality. That is called denial.

            “You argue absolutes that you alone get to declare as unquestionable diamonds of sparkling truth. The world does not function that way.

            Oh, look at me, I speak of divine truth. Behold my special insight. Marvel at my wisdom as I claim the corner on truth. It is I alone who know the truth, unquestionable, unchallengable. All who would speak otherwise blaspheme.”

            If I state that 2+2=4, and you disagree, you are in denial of an absolute truth. I am not speaking from some special divine or privileged perspective, but rather simply recognizing reality.

            You don’t get to redefine reality, Mathius. The world simply doesn’t work that way.

            “You. Do. Not. Speak. For. Reality.”

            I. Simply. Recognize. Reality. And. Use. It. As. A. Basis. For. My. Position.

            “You do not get to unilaterally declare the nature of reality any more than I do.”

            Exactly! So how do you figure that you can forcefully define my values and needs and lifestyle, by force? What reality do you live where people do not have their own minds?

            “I declare that the Earth is flat and that green is now red. What? You dare disagree with me? Well that’s called denial!! Heathen.”

            If you argued reality, I would not call it the BS that it is. So, lets actually address my challenging questions about recognizing reality.

            “It’s good to know you’ve written out a syllabus for my education, Professor Jimmy. I assume you’ve filed it safely in your Trapper Keeper. But you know what? I think I’ll pass. I don’t care to engage further with you. An overexcited and self-impressed juvenile is not worth engaging in conversation when they think they have the world figured out and the rest of us are morons for not going along. Maybe you’ll have a clearer head when you’re done with your after school activities and had a snack. I think your mom packed you some string cheese – your favorite! Maybe after you’ve had a little nap, we can try again.”

            You are apparently the one who needs a nap, as you are the one obviously frustrated. And why not engage me? Too challenging?

            You sure can make a very creating sarcastic display. But can you actually argue against my position?

            Do you consider people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to be juvenile in their positions upon which they premised your nation?

      • Yes YOU ARE MORONS.

        You have no root principles from which you raise your argument.
        You sit on quick sand and pretend when the sand reaches your nose, you can flap your arms and fly away.

        You deny argument raised from principle using reason. And thus, you are ALWAYS STUCK defending the undependable, thus and then, resort to PETER PAN STORIES to try to save yourself.

  20. Jim Duncan says:

    “As far as I’m aware, any sane person would consider these reasonable requirements of parenting. And, further, that any parent unwilling or unable to do so should not retain custody of said children.”

    Translation; I am insane and believe I own other people’s children

    “But Jimmy sees it differently. He see big gov’ment with its jackboot on his throat controlling and proscribing his parental rights. From a “first principles” perspective (if you stipulate his principles and not ours), he’s correct. It is a threat of violence”

    Thank you.

    “(although his escalation to “murder” is prima facie absurd unless deliberately courting confrontation) in order to coerce compliance… ”

    Do you understand the nature of an edict? Do you know what a standing order is?

    The state says “This shall be so…” and includes a list of escalating measures or punishments to coerce people into compliance. That list of measures ends with deadly force.

    Once that sequence of cause/effect is initiated, the ultimate answer is death, and it is ALWAYS initiated, as it is a standing order.

    It is an edict, a standing order. It applies all of the time, everywhere within a claimed territory. It is THE government answer. It does not sometimes apply or unless this or that circumstance, or sort of or maybe. It says it IS, or shall BE.

    In other words, government is a constant imminent threat of death or compliance, an occupying force, and no different than if China were to invade and occupy the USA. It is simply being occupied by those who consent.

    “but of a standard which he should not find objectionable or onerous except insofar as it is externally imposed rather than self-directed.”

    Are you speaking about free will, choice?

    “All that is to say (and correct me if I’m wrong here), that Jimmy isn’t really objecting to the requirement that he educate his kids or keep them safe. He’s objecting to the idea that someone is holding a figurative gun to his head and making him do so.”

    It is much more than that, but that is the basic gist of it, yes.

    Everything you statists argue is premised on the idea that humans are not human, that reality is as prescribed on paper, and not what it really is. If you indulge my arguments to their conclusion, that is what it comes to.

    You people aren’t living in the real world, but rather the one created by your altered perception thereof. Start with the immaculate premise of reality as we know it. Define humans scientifically. In doing so, you recognize rights, free will, self determination.

    If you stay on course, if you maintain a principally consistent position, you see the gross deviation that is government vs reality.

  21. Jim Duncan says:

    @ Matt

    What does the first few sentences of the second paragraph of the us declaration of independence say?

    • Jim Duncan says:

      What does this mean, Mathius? …Mr. Genius on my side.

      Let’s break this down. Let’s then apply your greater good justifications for systematic violence against people like myself whom you claim to own.

      Let’s break it down so much, that we demonstrate the inconsistency and barbarism of your chosen system.

      What does this actually mean? What is self evident truth? What is inalienable rights, and how does it apply to equality?

      What is a right to life, liberty and happiness? What does it actually mean?

      …OR WERE THE FOUNDERS OF YOUR NATION JUST A BUNCH OF IMMATURE MEN ACTING LIKE 14 YEAR OLDS !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-

      • gmanfortruth says:

        All you are doing is trying to justify the use of violence against anyone who disagrees with your ideology. No different than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. They all thought the same thing.

        • Jim Duncan says:

          No. I am arguing brilliantly and consistently as to make you recognize reality against the rationalized ill-perceived reality that allows you to justify violence.

          This is why you all avoid or obfuscate any position I present. It’s my position against all of yours, and I win because I argue reality. It is frustrating, I know.

          If I argue I have a right to use force in defense against statism, in order for you to call it illegitimate, you have to demonstrate that the state is not offensive, which you cannot do, because the reality is that it is systematic violence, offense.

          If you argue statism vs anarchism, then I show the very premise of your nation in recognition of the premise of my entire idealism, thus demonstrating it is rights vs rights, and not really about the labels or rationalized violent nonsense. ..again continuing demonstrating the state as violence, etc etc..

          If you argue the legitimacy of anything government, I argue the faulty premise and go in the same circles around a truth that you cannot tackle.

          My position is lock tight and solid and it is aggravating the piss out of you is what is happening.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            My position is lock tight and solid and it is aggravating the piss out of you is what is happening.

            So Hitler thought as well. There is a line between Sociopath and Psychopath. One just thinks it……then crosses that line to the next level. Go back and read your own words. Government sucks, we get it.

            • Jim Duncan says:

              Do you realize what you argue? Do you realize just how inconsistent and jumbled your positions are?

              You can organize to violate, but defense against violence is psychopathy? How so, gman? How so?

              Show me in reasonable terms how you are a great sane guy for organizing to impose violence upon others, and how I am a confused psycho for suggesting/arguing defense applies to violence.

              • Jim Duncan says:

                Better yet, why not engage my arguments and actually try addressing some of those questions I ask.

                …or is that too difficult to actually think about something beyond salivating over Trump?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I’m not going to even consider continuing an argument for your fairy land. I have already made my case, you just don’t like it…TOUGH. Your fairy land will never exist in our current world, get over it. Your attempt to justify violence in the name of defense against anyone who don’t agree with you is bullshit, period. END OF DISCUSSION!

              • Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. You win! How bout you take your win and be done. We’ll take the loss for the team.

              • Jim Duncan says:

                In other words, gman, you run scared because you cannot legitimize your argument for violence against me and everyone.

                Show me how my position is fairly land? Is this applicable to your founders who base their idealism on the same values and principles as me?

                What is self evident truth, Gman? Fairy land?

                I find it interesting how you state that “Your attempt to justify violence in the name of defense against anyone who don’t agree with you is bullshit, period.”

                …yet you not only justify violence against those who disagree with you and your state, but actually act accordingly and organize to do exactly that, ..

                …then criticize me for arguing defense?

                I am the one arguing, trying to reason, using logic. You are the one actually organizing to violate.

                I argue, you violate, and I am the psycho?

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    Today, we have a president who poses an existential threat to those with a vested interest in prolonged war. Donald Trump has shown that he is a threat to the military-industrial complex in two important ways. First, his assertion that friendly and peaceful relations with Russia are something to be desired. Second, the fact that he refuses to discuss military strategy publicly shows that if he enters a war, he will be doing so with the intention to win and, more importantly, to finish the war.

    Both of these ideas are a threat to the sustainability of war as a business model. Making Russia into an ally deprives Corporate Hawks of a valuable scapegoat and innumerable channels for moving weapons secretly. Second, depriving them of advance knowledge of military action by keeping classified information classified makes it difficult for Corporate Hawks to invest in war futures.

    It is reasonable, on this basis alone, that the entire Washington and media establishment has resisted the Trump presidency tooth and claw to preserve the institution of war for profit.

    http://www.americanlibertyreport.com/articles/why-winning-wars-is-a-revolutionary-idea/

    • Jim Duncan says:

      Siriusly?

      Because it appears Trump is positioning for war with his appointments and comments toward Iran, about military spending, etc..

      Trump order sets military buildup in motion
      http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-rebuild-military-executive-action-234288

      Trump: Military Spending ‘More Important’ Than Balanced Budget
      http://www.defensenews.com/articles/trump-military-spending-more-important-than-balanced-budget

      Trump calls for military spending increase
      http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/donald-trump-defense-spending-sequester/index.html

      President Trump Says Military More Important Than Balanced Budget
      http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-trump-says-military-more-important-balanced-budget-n712836

      President Trump Is Likely To Boost U.S. Military Spending By $500 Billion To $1 Trillion
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestiefer/2016/11/09/president-trump-is-likely-to-boost-u-s-military-spending-by-500-billion-to-1-trillion/#1ed6a83d6024

    • Jim Duncan says:

      I replied to this comment with several articles citing quite the opposite, suggesting that Trump is actually posturing for war.

      It went into moderation and is now gone. Should I re-post?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        A lesson about rules and life. There will and always be rules. With rules, there will always be enforcement. In all human societies throughout history, there has ALWAYS been a hierarchy. Even here, at SUFA, others can make decisions, not just I. One of the rules is a 3 link maximum per comment. So let’s put things into perspective.

        You came here and violated our rules, or, in your terms, brought violence upon us. In your fairy land, you could have been exterminated for such violence in defense of our rules.

        Remember to follow the rules.

        • 🙂

        • Jim Duncan says:

          Bullshit. You could have simply approved it. You’re flexing your control muscles because you can’t win an argument with your ridiculousness.

          Not to mention that the links I posted demonstrate that your ‘pacifier’ is really a war hawk who just played a lot of fools.

          Ego much?

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Your links, from Politico, CNN and NBC etc are nothing more than anti-Trump Liberal propaganda. It’s FAKE news. You apparently haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in the real world. Because if you are resorting to Liberal propaganda to support your position, you already struck out. It’s also telling that you would use the Liberal Left in support of your position in any form, considering their recent intolerance and acts of violence.

            • Jim Duncan says:

              Then put it out there, Gman. Show us how it is fake news.

              Scared?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Just look around, open your eyes to whats right there in front of you. This is one area that you seriously lack at.

            • Is it 17 videos that no one will watch anyway, or is it a dozen photos of slashed up bodies? Or is it stories of random government over reach ad nauseum. You can keep all of it and save SUFA space. But then we have to bear with the thrashing and flailing fit that Duncan will have. Sigh.

              • Jim Duncan says:

                Or maybe it was a series of links demonstrating Trump’s many actions and words that all point to posturing for war.

                But, of course, SUFA has a Nazi problem. Contrary information is not tolerated.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                With a little thinking, you can see the bias in the article title. What Trump thinks or wants about spending is moot, Congress determines spending. The articles are Trump hit pieces aimed the Liberal Left who are generally against defense spending……Do you see any irony?

              • Here’s a thought, Jimbo.

                Take a deep breath and calm down.

                Calling people Nazis / Nazi-like is never going to help get your point across. It’s just combative and makes people shut down. (“But, Mathius,” I hear you thinking, “if they shut down, that’s because they’re stupid and flawed and incapable of listening to my superior logic!”)

                How’s this for a wild idea: stop acting like the sage of sages who shits diamonds of truth and start acting like a seeker of truth. If you are right, then so be it. Ask people to explain their perspective and then drill down until you expose a flaw they can’t reconcile.

                To offer a religious analogy, it’s the difference between a devoted preacher who listens to his flock and helps them find the answers they seek verse the foaming at the mouth guy with the crazy eyes standing on the corning and shouting at passerby’s about how fags are going to hell. Which one do you think gets his point across better?

                You’re not going to shout SUFA down by being loud and obnoxious. If BF couldn’t do it, you sure as hell won’t – he’s on an entirely different level than you. Try engaging people rather than being a bully.

              • Then post them. Allow readers to judge for themselves.

              • Seriously?

                I am the one posting links for discussion and being strong-armed by administrator privilege. Do you not see this as a blatant avoidance of reasonable discussion?

  23. Jim Duncan says:

    @Anita

    “Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. You win! How bout you take your win and be done. We’ll take the loss for the team.”

    Call off your dogs and I will have no reason to bitch about violence against me.

    If your government allowed an opt-out (preferably by default) none of my arguments would stand. I could then be free to mind my own business.

  24. Jim Duncan says:

    @VH

    I thought you might find this interesting;

    Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants Men To Approve Abortion, Calls Women ‘Hosts’
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-lawmaker-wants-men-to-approve-abortion-calls-women-hosts_us_58a1eaf5e4b094a129ed7fac?9y0c3tcbwo2lhxgvi&

    An Oklahoma State Representative wants to enact a law that would make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion without her sexual partner’s consent.

    Republican Rep. Justin Humphrey, who was elected to represent Oklahoma’s 19th district in the state legislature last year, drafted House Bill 1441 on January 9, which states, “No abortion shall be performed in this state without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus.” Exceptions would be made if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest ― though there are no details as to how a woman would have to prove that rape or incest occurred ― as well as if the woman’s life is put in danger by the pregnancy.

    According to the Intercept’s Jordan Smith, the bill was tabled without comment by the House Public Health Committee on Februrary 8, but appears to be on the Committee’s agenda for Tuesday.

    The Intercept also originally reported that Humphrey wrote the bill because men have been “excluded…from these kinds of decisions.”

    “I understand that [women] feel like that is their body,” he told the Intercept on February 8. He continued, saying that he prefers to call women “hosts”:

    I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant. So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.

    Should the bill be passed, women would have to start getting men’s permission for abortion starting November of this year ― it would also join Arkansas on the list of states that let other people interfere with a woman’s federally protected right to abortion.

    • Why is not ok for one human to determine the life or death of another, but it is ok if two humans determine the life or death of another?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Nice to hear from you 🙂 Hope your world and family are happy, healthy and doing well. Peace!

      • Oh Jesus, who summonsed you?

        Was it me when I suggested building a monument to you built out of solid oak? It was, wasn’t it?

        Good to see you, old friend.

        • My monument would be built out of titanium, not wood. Wood rots.

          How are you? Kid’s doing well?

          • I’m doing well.. Holding in there.

            Kids are good. Growing like weeds. The 4 year old spent the night (stalling before bedtime) explaining to me how the auroras are the result of charged particles from the sun hitting the Earth’s invisible shield caused by a big magnet in the middle of the Earth that is bigger than our house. This was shortly after she explained that coal powers generators which give us electricity. Needless to say, I was pleased.

            The little one (1 year old), well, she doesn’t say much yet. But she is cute, clever, and impossibly strong (seriously, very strong. Much stronger than her big sister. A real bruiser. Maybe there’s a shot-put scholarship in her future? This is not normal.). I’m pleased about that, too.

            How’s your little one? Girl, right? She must be getting big. Did she get her pilot’s licence? Does she beat you at poker yet? How’s the arm? And, while we’re at it, where have you been hiding out?

            • Yes, she is a flight instructor now, and getting her commercial with a small sea plane commuter air line on the coast.

              Arm still and always will be a small issue, but use to it.

              Been a hard year after my wife’s passing, but a good year too. New people and new life and a new love.

              • I missed the news about your wife. Please accept my belated and sincerest condolences.

                She must have been a saint if she was willing to marry you. 🙂

                Congrats on the new love though.

                Regarding the arm, however… “always will be”? Not hardly. 10 years, 20 tops, they’ll probably just chop your arm off and give you a massively superior prosthetic – you’ll finally become a literal cyborg.

              • I second that condolence, and congratulate your new beginnings.

        • Mathius,

          It was a trifecta…or a trilogy…or…or, it’s like Beetlejuice. You were the 3rd person to mention him….thus, he was summoned. 😉

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    Shouldn’t Judges be required to KNOW something about the world that they live in prior to making rulings? Shouldn’t State level elected officials, like AG’s also know at least HALF of what Judges should be required to know?

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/72-convicted-terrorists-came-seven-nations-negating-court-ruling-against-trump

  26. Rick,

    …and personal experience are reasons why I agree with our anarchist friends in this area.

    I think we all agree with them in theory. I think everyone at SUFA could live together in harmony in anarchist heaven. The problem is starting points. These guys argue as though there is somewhere to run to make anarchy the way to go, from a clean slate. But there is no where to go. We’re way past Christopher Columbus times. I see no path from here to anarchy, and I really don’t feel like going to jail, so I hang around here and talk about degrees of government with the rest of you.

    Adding, I love waking up to a good bitching from BF. He and Bottom Line/Elisheba/ Jim Duncan ( guess you get multiple identities in anarchy too) think exactly the same, but I’d prefer to live with BF. I don’t see him being violent with me if I broke an imaginary rule. This other cat is a loose cannon. Who knows what he’s capable of?

    • Jim Duncan says:

      Any position I hold to use force will be from a defensive perspective. If there is no act of violence against me, there’s no reason to use force. Reasonable arguments for defense is not “loose cannon”.

      I am actually quite calm and usually very reasonable about things. It is not uncommon for my friends and family to share things with me because I will usually come up with something more reasonable and peaceful than they will.

      A lot of the things I have argued here recently(like killing all the statists) is more about thought provocation (as I have explained). I am driving a point, however obscure my methods.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        You have already proven that you can justify anything as “defense”. Frankly, you would make a good politician in that area. 🙂

        • If you would get your definitions straight as I suggested, then maybe you would not be so confused.

          Shall we review?

      • Jesus, I can just sense your fedora through the screen. Look, I appreciate that you’re posting here while pretending to be using the bathroom during second period Spanish, but at this point, they’re beginning to wonder if there’s something wrong with your prostate that you need so many trips to the bathroom.

        Let’s try to get your ego in check, shall we?

        Your concept of self defense is, basically, a universal declaration of total war. You are a fanatic on par with ISIS. “Killing all the statists” isn’t a “thought provocation,” it’s an extremist wild-eyed and, frankly, alarming, position. Even by SUFA standards, which themselves, are pretty extreme, it is way over the line.

        I am driving a point, however obscure my methods.

        We get your point. Contrary to your opinion, the good folks here are not idiots. Even Gman has his lucid moments. We’ve known Black Flag for years. We’ve duked it out with him, Elisheba, and a handful of other anarchists before. You’re point isn’t novel or special. We’ve heard it before. The problem isn’t that we don’t get your “point,” the problem is that you’re being a condescending jerk.

        Your “methods” are hostile, combative, inappropriate, and, worse, counterproductive.

        Dial it down and have a conversation like a big boy (or girl) or I’m going to have to have a word with your school councilor. Maybe get you some Prozac.

    • Heck, if we could all live in harmony I would even consider Liberal Heaven! Ok, maybe not. LOL

      BF makes a lot of sense and he does not advocate killing anyone that doesn’t agree with him. I could ALMOST go for the Free Market, Capitalism, Anarchy. Jimmy boy has a psychological disorder….that’s where the multiple identities comes from. 😉

  27. Happy Valentine’s Day, SUFA!

    • HUAH!!!!….Amen…..

      • Canine Weapon says:

      • I thought you ignored profanity because it isn’t appropriate or whatever.

        …or is it that you simply don’t like kidnappers to be called names?

        • Canine Weapon says:

          It’s a joke. It’s humor. Relax.

          Naughty words are a big issue – we’re all adults here (except you, if Mathius is to be believed). The issue is about being rude.

          • *aren’t.

            Naughty words aren’t a big issue.

            I’m a dog. You try typing with paws and see how you do.

          • Perfect mug for my nephew. Can’t wait to use that one on him. He get waaaay into his arguments.

          • Is kidnapping considered cordial and nice? Do you respect kidnappers?

            If someone tried to abduct your child, what lengths would you go to in order to protect them?

            I posit that “evil bitch” is more than appropriate, and not at all rude, when characterizing a kidnapper.

            I also posit that shooting someone in the back who is about to bring the Calvary to steal your child, is more than rightful and just.

            WTF is so rude about protecting children from someone who would steal them and subject them to things like abandonment, neglect, and molestation?

            • You seem rather hung up on this “kidnapping” aspect. That’s rather specific.. not just violence, but specifically kidnapping of children. And you’ve referenced it specifically a few times now.

              Not to get too personal.. well, actually, this is pretty personal, so feel free to tell me to shove it. But do you have a personal anecdote you’d care to share with the group?

              • The issue was in regard to my calling a CPS worker an “evil bitch”, and stating that, if it were me, I would tell her to go away, and then when she brought a pig, I would kill him first and shoot her in the back as she ran away to gather more pigs.

                If they come to your home asking about your children, it means they’re looking for excuses to kidnap them by force. Under no circumstances will I accept a CPS worker or pigs deciding my child’s welfare.

                I will not hesitate to kill in defense of my child.

                You can call that violence or a loose cannon or petulance or whatever. But while your child is being processed and lost, molested, etc, …mine will be hidden somewhere safe, because I was smart enough to think and act strategically.

              • The issue was in regard to my calling a CPS worker an “evil bitch”, and stating that, if it were me, I would tell her to go away, and then when she brought a pig, I would kill him first and shoot her in the back as she ran away to gather more pigs.

                .. She’s evil because her goal and intent is the protection and welfare of a child?

                Let’s consider it under slightly different circumstances. Let’s say it’s a legitimately abusive situation. The parents are openly and flagrantly sexually abusing 14 year old daughter and, when they’re not doing that, they keep her locked in the basement. (Let’s see how much pathos I can cram in here). She’s never seen the sunlight, and has already become pregnant several times by her father (and his friends). They beat her regularly, of course, and she is so damaged, she is incapable of speech above a 5 year old level. NOW, let’s imagine that same CPS worker shows up with a “pig” to check just what in the hell is going on. Is she evil for doing something to stop this situation? Are the parental rights so inviolate that even in this extreme scenario, intervention is evil and merits shooting the well-intentioned interlopers? Is taking a defenseless child away from that situation an really act of “kidnapping”? If you cannot see that there must be shades of gray, well.. that says something, too.

                And, if you can see that something must give – if only in this extreme example – you’ve opened the door to negotiation with regards to just where to draw the line. You’ve left your perfect little black and white world and entered my statist reality. Then, you’re one of us, and the only question becomes one of degrees.

              • Jim Duncan says:

                Granted, there are situations where intervention is warranted, not limited to/from any specific parties. There is also a right and wrong answer to that. If it involves violating someone, then it is not the right answer.

                I posit that, in such a case where there is abuse by parents/family, the best ethical answer is to offer an out to the victim, but not to the degree that it violates.

                In your extreme example(which is, tragically, not unheard of) it probably warrants direct action. I m not arguing against that.

                But that was not the scenario in question, nor is it the real argument. The scenario in question was of CPS people acting as truancy officers/kidnappers. They see your child is not in public school and it is an opportunity to claim negligence and steal them.

                In such a case, I would tell them to get lost, and/or use deadly force as necessary.

                But the real argument was the Colonel being offended at my choice of words. I defend them. If a CPS worker is at my door asking about my children, their meddling is unwarranted and unwelcome.

              • In your extreme example(which is, tragically, not unheard of) it probably warrants direct action.

                A man walks into a bar. He sits next to a beautiful woman and offers her $1,000,000 cash to spend the night with him.

                She is stunned. A million bucks would be life changing. She hesitates, but accepts.

                The man then offers here $10 instead. She slaps him. “What kind of woman do you take me for!?” she yells at him.

                “Well, ma’am, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are. Now we’re just haggling over price.”

        • The colonel ignore profanity?

          HA, no.

          See, the problem is that he spent so much time in the military that he doesn’t even register most profanity as profanity. You have to reach into levels attained only by drill instructors in order to make him notice.

          He’s just on a whole ‘nother level.

    • 🙂

  28. Would anyone agree with me today that Trump is being sucked in to a great ambush by going along with this en banc hearing that the 9th Circuit wants? Makes the hairs on my bald head stand up….

    • “It’s A Trap!”

      -Admiral Ackbar

    • I’m not stressin. There is so much at stake on the whole topic of immigration, for both left and right….and now he has a perfect beef to expose judicial activism…that he’s willing to take one for the team just to get it all out in the open. He has, and is in fact using, other avenues to the same goal.

      I feel bad for the whole Flynn situation. But…it shows Trump knows when to cut ties…and kudos to Flynn for manning up and resigning. I think he was marked from the get go anyway, coming over from the Obama admin.

    • No, I think its the other way around. He is setting a trap for them.

      He is exposing gross judicial over-reach, and should he not prevail there he will organize massive judicial restructuring to kick these creatures back into the constitution.

      One way or the other, judicial law making from the bench is done for.

  29. Ad hominem – ad hominem – ad hominem – ad hominem

    This is how you get called out for being morons. Reason doesn’t work so you must twist and skew and personal attack, obfuscate and outright ban any chance to be proven illegitimate in your position you hold to violate everyone.

    Very typical of statists.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Would you like some cheese?

    • If you would like the ad hominem to stop, stop acting like a petulant know-it-all lecturing a group of mindless drones.

      ——–

      I get that you object to being blocked from posting a slew of articles. I don’t know if they got unblocked, but you’re welcome to post them one-at-a-time. I’ve had this issue before, myself. If there is a topic you’d like to discuss/debate (other than “you’re an idiot for not agreeing with my first principles and concluding that anarchy is the only solution and, by the way, you’re evil”), I’d be happy to engage as far as time (and my interest) permits.

      SUFA is a wonderful place for gaining interesting viewpoints you can’t necessarily get anywhere else. It’s also an open forum to espouse non-conventional views. The only real rule in these parts is be civil – it’s rule #1 and you came out blazing in defiance. Should you be surprised that there was an ad hominem backlash? Why should you get to be obnoxious to everyone and then cry foul when they (and I) are obnoxious back?

      • “If you would like the ad hominem to stop, stop acting like a petulant know-it-all lecturing a group of mindless drones.”

        Stop acting like mindless drones then. Everything I have posited, whether I am being nice about it or not, is met with fierce resistance and virtually no reasoning, nothing but ad hominems, straw man, obfuscation, blatant hypocrisy/inconsistency, strong-arm, vitriol, etc, …

        ..anything but logic, all to avoid admitting that you really are terrorists by definition. You have your egos firmly attached to an idea that you own everyone, and you don’t like hearing that it is truly evil.

        “SUFA is a wonderful place for gaining interesting viewpoints you can’t necessarily get anywhere else. It’s also an open forum to espouse non-conventional views. The only real rule in these parts is be civil – it’s rule #1 and you came out blazing in defiance. Should you be surprised that there was an ad hominem backlash? Why should you get to be obnoxious to everyone and then cry foul when they (and I) are obnoxious back?”

        Is that what the “A-fukin’-men” was about?

        Who is the one calling foul? Do you not see it was a response to you? You can call foul, but when I respond, you and G tear into me?

        Whatever.

        • “Stop acting like mindless drones then.” Translation, please. I am reading this statement as…I am a mindless drone unless I agree with your definitions,

          “admitting that you really are terrorists by definition.” Citation, please. I have looked up all the definitions of terrorists, and it does not fit your usage.

          “virtually no reasoning”… Explain , please. I am reading this that if I do not accept your position, then there is no reasoning.”

          ” you don’t like hearing that it is truly evil.” By whose definition.

          I would very much like to debate with you but it is futile if your only answer is….I am terrorist. Because I am reading the same thing that MAthius is…..UNLESS we agree with you, it is futile. So, if you can answer above, I would be interested. But if there is any reference to…I am right and you are wrong, there is no reason. For there to be honest debate, there must be two sides to each, correct?

          (Ok, Mathius, I am trying. Trying to keep an open mind. I think that it is futile, but if I can listen and learn something from you and BF…..I can listen to anyone.)

          • Jim Duncan says:

            Thank you, Colonel.

            ““Stop acting like mindless drones then.” Translation, please. I am reading this statement as…I am a mindless drone unless I agree with your definitions,”

            No sir, disagreement is not mindless. Disagreement without thought is mindless. Digression, obfuscation, straw-man, ad himinem, gross inconsistency, etc, is mindless. Outright rejecting fact for convenience, is mindless. Blocking legitimate comments that are contrary to your opinion, simply BECAUSE they are contrary, is mindless.

            Having your own opinion, disagreeing with mine, is not mindless. But you should have some basis to support your reasoning.

            ““admitting that you really are terrorists by definition.” Citation, please. I have looked up all the definitions of terrorists, and it does not fit your usage.”

            A simple definition of terrorism is the use of fear and violence for a political goal. This is exactly what government is. At it’s core, it is nothing but coercion with the ultimate threat of death. That is exactly using fear and violence for a political goal. Government IS terrorism, by definition.

            If you actively willingly support and demand it(like voting or otherwise working for the state), it means you are a member, and are therefore a terrorist.

            “virtually no reasoning”… Explain , please. I am reading this that if I do not accept your position, then there is no reasoning.”

            Refer to above; No sir, disagreement is not mindless. Disagreement without thought is mindless. Digression, obfuscation, straw-man, ad himinem, gross inconsistency, etc, is mindless. Outright rejecting fact for convenience, is mindless. Blocking legitimate comments that are contrary to your opinion, simply BECAUSE they are contrary, is mindless.

            “” you don’t like hearing that it is truly evil.” By whose definition.”

            I suppose there are a lot of other words that can be used. Whatever adjectives, people don’t like hearing criticism of the system they have so firmly attached their identity and ego to. People take offense to inconvenient truths.

            “I would very much like to debate with you but it is futile if your only answer is….I am terrorist. Because I am reading the same thing that MAthius is…..UNLESS we agree with you, it is futile. So, if you can answer above, I would be interested. But if there is any reference to…I am right and you are wrong, there is no reason. For there to be honest debate, there must be two sides to each, correct?”

            Correct. Which is why it is so frustrating when people deviate from reason. They essentially concede while still arguing. There is only one side left, mine, and I didn’t even get to the conclusion. The whole thing becomes pointless and an excuse to call me crazy or violent or whatever.

  30. I just wanna get this article on the record here. Well written essay and timeline of current and past events….and quite possibly a look into a more peaceful Islamic faith.
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/14/trump-administration-intel-white-hats-confer-with-reform-agents-within-political-islam/#more-128584

    • If the past is any guide to the future, the only way it can happen is with suppression, probably violent, of the orthodox. Turkey is a good example. Mustafa Kemel (Attaturk) had to drag Turkey into modern times kicking and screaming after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Similarly the history of Egypt as a “moderate” secular power is because of Gamel Abdul Nasser and like minded successors. The one US inspired attempt to “democratize” the place blew up with more Christian and non-Muslim dead than in the previous 50 years. .

      We all know what happened to the progressive, enlightened, modern Iran with the fall of the Shah. Ditto for the Afghanistan of the 1960’s and 1970’sLibya has descended into chaos as has Iraq.

      I’d give hundred to one odds on Syria going fundamentalist if we succeeded in replacing Assad.

      For some strange reason, the West has a real problem with Authoritarian countries who are struggling towards modernity but none when they slip centuries backwards into religiously inspired anarchy.

      • i dunno, SK, we can hope. Christians left the old testament behind by ditching all the stoning and slashing. The whole populist/nationalist global movement could help too. If everyone started shipping the bad guys back to where they came from, they might see that they’re being left behind. That involves keeping guys like McCain out of picture too though.

  31. gmanfortruth says:
  32. Just A Citizen says:

    From a small paper this weekend, an article taken from Seattle paper. The Washington Dems and AG are doing victory dances, bragging and pumping fists over the ruling against Trump. Guess that is to be expected, even if they get slammed in the end.

    But here is the interesting part. The article starts with bragging, by a third party, about how damn smart the AG is. He was playing 3D Chess against Trump’s checkers. Anyone heard that before? Anyway, it turns out the AG admits he and his staff began working on this law suit right after the election.

    This is why the press thought him brilliant. He “knew” something would eventually be coming so he spent tax payer dollars prepping for a lawsuit over an actions which had not happened yet.

    I wonder what did not get attention from his office while his staff’s time was spent on this.

    My point? Damn you want a point? As I said earlier, the resistance to Trump was PLANNED in advance, ORGANIZED in advance, and the trigger pulled first upon his election and then again at inauguration.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Shamelessly pilfered from another poster on another site. Intellectual property be damned, arrrrgh!

    A taxi passenger tapped the driver on the shoulder to ask him a question.

    The driver screamed, lost control of the car, nearly hit a bus, went up on the footpath, and stopped centimeters from a shop window.

    For a second everything went quiet in the cab, then the driver said, “Look mate, don’t ever do that again. You scared the daylights out of me!”

    The passenger apologized and said, “I didn’t realize that a little tap would scare you so much.”

    The driver replied, “Sorry, it’s not really your fault. Today is my first day as a cab driver – I’ve been driving a funeral van for the last 25 years”.

  34. The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Yes, Mr. Trump. They will be happening. So you should plan accordingly. Or simply ignore them and give us a truly transparent govt..

    • Do you hear that? It is the sound of the world’s tiniest violin.

      The hypocrisy of a man who cheered on Russian hackers and reveled in the drip-drip of wiki-leaked hacked DNC and Clinton emails and is now bitching and moaning about leaks is, simply, beyond comprehension.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        OK, now that you got that off your chest, certainly you see a difference between those and people leaking classified information about things going on between Trump and other leaders of the world.

        Of course he could solve the problem by using a tape recorder and kicking everyone else out of the room. Nobody ever tried that before. 🙂

        • I actually do see a problem with the leaks themselves.

          I also see a problem with Trump not knowing about START and/or hanging up on the Australian PM because he was tired.

          I ALSO see a problem about his blatant hypocrisy and wining victimization complex.

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    SUFA, SUFA, SUFA

    All discussions about first principles are fruitless when arguing from two entirely different world views. Here recently even the word “reason” has taken on new meaning.

    The arguments end differently if you start from a different position. So lets try this:

    Government is an institution with a monopoly on the use of legal force within a defined geographic area.

    Now a caveat: Geographic area does not mean it has to have a defined hard and fast boundary. So it is defined but not necessarily “specific”.

    The definition used for Govt. has to be universal to all forms of govt. regardless of structure and/or the degree of centralized control (dictatorship vs. full democracy). Many early govt.s had somewhat fuzzy boundaries. So don’t think Govt is synonymous with Nation State.

    Oh, I almost forgot. You cannot actually start with the definition of Govt. You have to start with Metaphysical truths. And then if you cannot describe how humans think or conceptualize things it is hard to deal with less complex concepts like Morality, Ethics and then Govt. or the politic.

    I only provided a definition of Govt. to show how such a small change in the “definition” leads to entirely different “possible” outcomes.

    • Here’s a first principle: All living human beings have intrinsic worth.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Kind of a F U Z Z Y first principle don’t you think?

        Now using one of your strategies, what “intrinsic worth” does that couple who keeps their abused daughter in the basement have?

        And of course; What is that worth and to whom does it have worth?

    • Jim Duncan says:

      “All discussions about first principles are fruitless when arguing from two entirely different world views.”

      That is why I start with reality, because it is universal regardless of opinions, and because it is important to have a solid premise in which to base things.

      What is reality? What is human?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Actually what you do is declare your opinion of reality as the only truth or thing which is real.

        You provide no defense or even argument for your view. For example, you DECLARE rights as reality. That ends any debate or discussion.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Oh, and “reality” is not a first principle. It is a condition or state of the Universe. As in what you see, feel, hear, smell, etc. is REAL, or NOT REAL.

        You cannot assign “reality” as a principle condition regarding humans when we are both rational and emotional animals. We think and we also simply react. And neither thinking or reacting assures a rational or logical conclusion. So where is your reality in such a Universe?

        • Jim Duncan says:

          Reality is a value.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Murder is real. Therefore it has value????

            • Jim Duncan says:

              “Murder is real. Therefore it has value????”

              Yes. If you are analyzing something, and one factor is a murder, then, yes, it is a value in whatever reasoning.

              In this discussion, reality is a value. It is something to be considered, as is the definition of what is a human.

              Once that is defined, inalienable rights are recognized. The discussion focuses on principle function of the dynamic of what is human behavior and rights.

              ….leading to liberty, as per rights and reality.

          • WHOA…..sir. How do you place a value on reality? To me, as someone stated above, reality is what I see, hear, feel, taste, touch. Is there another definition..

            • Jim Duncan says:

              Think of it in terms of mathematics.

              The numbers are the values. The functions are the principles.

              Reality + Human = Inalienable Rights

              • Forgive my ignorance because I am really tryingto follow……Where did you get this….Reality + Human = Inalienable Rights

              • Inalienable

                Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable.

                That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. The personal rights to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States are inalienable. Similarly, various types of property are inalienable, such as rivers, streams, and highways.

                West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
                inalienableadjective incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred, nontransferable, not able to be conveyed, quod abalienari non potest, secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable
                Associated concepts: inalienable lands, inalienable rights

                Are you going to give me the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing?

              • Jim Duncan says:

                Do you remember all those posts about gravity and light is what it is because the universe and god says it is? I was establishing a value, a premise, a truth. What is reality?

                However we describe or whatever we think about it, it is what it is and we deal with it. It is reality, it is truth, and it is a constant value.

                Part of reality, part of the real natural universe, is life. Life includes humans. We are natural creature of god’s real great universe.

                What is human?

                The answer to what is human is the basis for rights, as inalienable means inseparable, part of, or inherent. That is to say that inalienable rights are based in that which is a natural inalienable condition of being human.

                Nature says that we are humans, and humans have lungs, and need a nitrogen/oxygen gaseous mixture to survive. Thus it is an inalienable condition of humans to breathe air, therefore we have an inalienable right to breathe. If someone restricts or controls by force, denies, or prevents another human from breathing, it is a violation of that inalienable condition of human.

                Animals are no different. Nature says that cats are cats, and that they will be and do what cats are and do.

                Plants? No different. They have an inalienable right to seek sunlight and water.

                That same reasoning also applies to more complex aspects of human life. What is inalienable human nature and behavior, etc.?

              • Jim Duncan says:

                This line of reasoning, Colonel, is exactly the idealism, the premise in which the USA was founded

                Hence;

                We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting discussion with close friend who is pretty much steeped in the “left/liberal/democrat” side. Offered up an hypothetical question.

    If you could decide how much tax to pay the Fed. Govt., what percentage of your Gross Income would you give them?

    His answer: NONE. I would take some of the money saved, however, and donate it to XYZ Charity.

    He asked me what I would do.

    My answer: 10%, and I would do it without reservation. That should be enough to cover national defense, federal highways, the court system and a few other key things govt. can and should do.

    By the way, my answer results in a reduction of OVER 50% in existing Fed Govt. spending.

    I thought it was interesting that the self avowed Liberal would give nothing willingly. I am curious what our resident liberals would give.

    • I give willingly.

      I would not give 10% willingly.

      I would, however, be happy to say that I gave 10%.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        So if you give willingly I am to assume you take NO DEDUCTIONS. Right?

        • Ah ah ah…….Stop the presses……………..TO: Sir Mathius, of Yorkland, and Sir JAC of Idaholand……..question, please. Both of you state and use the term willingly……would each of you support “willingly” gifting to a state and not a forceable giving to a state? You would willingly understand King Colonel of Texasland if he decides that he does not wish to give willingly?

          • Sorry.. maybe it’s the vodka-red-bulls… I’m not following..

            • Sorry, your vodka/red bulls and my lack of Dr Pepper because the doc says to lay off…..

              Unless my foggy brain missed something you and JAC were talking willing contributions to…something. ( Society, guvmint )………to me, that reads no taxes. DO I have this much correct?

              • I think JAC is suggesting in-lieu of taxes that people would willingly give up 10% of their income to fund gov’ment and social services (incl national defense).

        • Of course I’m going to take every deduction I can get my mitts on. I’m a liberal, not a saint.

          (You’ll note, by the way, that I defended Trump’s use of the loss carry-forward.)

          • YOu are damn right…….so am I and so does everyone who pays taxes. I will squeeze the buffalo on the nickel until it farts.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            So you don’t willingly give 10% or try to appear as you do.

            WHAT is your magic Number Mathius? What is FAIR for you to contribute towards the greater good?

            Percentage of Gross Income ………. please.

    • I’d pay 10% But make it a 40 and out thing. You figure an average wage is 50k. 10% = 5k… 5k x 40 yrs = 200k. I’m thinking that’s plenty for me to pay in my lifetime for support of something that should only be a small part of my life. After 40 years you’re in your sixties and the yungins can take it from there.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        You still use the highways don’t you? Highways and defense are annual expenses, not a capital improvement to be made only once in your life. Curious why you think there should be a 40 year limit.

        • Just take 1 year for example on a 5k per person donation….even say 200 million people that’s a trillion. From people. Add on what you collect from business…invested and acruing and whatever else….that’s an awful lot. And thats just an average. The guy making 100k pays 10k per year. Or say 300 million paid per year…exactly how much should we have to contribute? The more we give them, the more they’re going to spend. After 40 years, I’d say I paid my debt to society.

  37. Everyone is talking a root principle as if there is one listed somewhere……please enlightenme to a written list of “root principes” or is a principle subjective to the beholder.

    • Jim Duncan says:

      A principle is a standard or premise for a function or behavior.

      Rights are a core value. Liberty is a principle of respecting rights, the principle of libertarianism.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      There is not a definitive list to be found somewhere. Written in stone, on paper or mud.

      Not in the realm of philosophy. Which is what we are going back and forth about.

      All “principles” have to be argued, investigated, considered, etc. etc. to determine if they are valid and where they stack up in the ranking of principles.

      First principles are those that support all others. They cannot be divided or found to be an extension of another principle. Thus First Principles, in my view, are synonymous with Root Principles.

      Example. The Law of Identity is a Root or First Principle. Man qua Man.

      To deny this principle is to argue that Man is something other than Man. Or worse, he is nothing but a figment of his own imagination.

      Once you agree that Man is Man then the next set of principles would involve the question What is Man? What are the key, truths, that define man as man.

      Such as; Man must act to survive. Man must think in order to act in a way to assure he survives.

      Now as you work up the food chain of philosophical arguments we eventually get to the area of Ethics, which includes morality. It is here that the Root or First Principle of Ethics shows up. Such as:

      It is immoral to INITIATE force upon another human being. Or in my own words:

      If you hit a man with a stick you give him the moral authority to hit you back.

      This still leaves room for debate, argument, thought, reason, and even logic. For example, if the word “violence” is substituted for force, it changes the context of all things that follow.

      Or if you change the principle to: No man should IMPOSE HIS WILL upon another. You get another set of answers.

      Multiple possibilities exist, but which is the truth? How do we know it is true?

      We know by way of applying rational thought, reason and logic. Which by the way is another principle. REASON is man’s only tool for survival and advancement.

      But what we cannot do in this is simple declare that Rights exist absent any argumentation to support them. That Man’s mere existence creates such Rights, as if they are attached to our hips, or in our brains. It took thousands of years of thinking, exploring and more thinking before Man could even articulate such concepts. Let alone make good arguments to defend them. Which would lead one to believe they are no so Natural as we might think at times.

      • So far, it seems that all of this is subjective. For example, I may view life different than you view life. I may view violence upon me differently than you would view violence upon you….you may like taxes, and, consequently, do not view it as violence upon you. I may not like taxes, which I might view, as violence upon me. Whom is correct?

        From what I read, if it is forced against your wishes, then it is violence. If it is not forced upon you then it is not violence…..do I understand your position correctly?

        • Jim Duncan says:

          “From what I read, if it is forced against your wishes, then it is violence. If it is not forced upon you then it is not violence…..do I understand your position correctly?”

          I’ll answer that. (as is below) Yes, that is correct.

          To violate is to abuse, to mistreat. Humans are individuals who choose.

          To restrict, encroach, deny, force, etc, choice, is to abuse choice, free will, self determination.

          To abuse/violate the right to choose is violence.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          Subjective? They could be. I like to think we can OBJECTIVELY identify the correct set of principles which will allow is to survive and live a flourishing life as a specie, not just as individuals.

          I equate Subjective to By Whim, and Objective as to By Reason.

          So before we could explore what is or is not a violent act we would have to agree on what is violence.

          Me; Violence = Physical or Mental Injury/Harm.

          Thus certain types of behavior which impair another person’s ability to think clearly, to apply reason, is Coercive and could be called violence.

          Violence is a TYPE of Coercion. Coercion is the use of force or manipulation of other to IMPOSE your will upon them.

          Taxes are NOT violence. They are Theft. Another type of coercion in that the purpose of taxes is to impose the will of others upon you by taking your income/property for their use.

          Enforcing Tax Collection can certainly result in Violence.

          And this is the essence of the argument made above. Taxes or child protective services or public schools are violent because the Govt. MAY resort to violence in enforcing said laws/rules. The problem with this argument is that violence in reality, occurs between people. The govt. does not commit violence. It sends its representative who commit said violence. And those representatives may or may not commit violence. Thus the absolute that Public school mandates are violence FAILS the test of absolute application.

          I do agree to an extent with their argument in that being Arrested by the Govt representatives is a form of violence. It only fails to result in physical harm if you do not resist. I am OK saying it is not violence in and of itself. But it most certainly is Coercion. And if not physically violent it is intended to harm the mental state of the victim. To IMPOSE the WILL OF OTHERS upon them.

  38. Jim Duncan says:

    What is human?

    Humans are individuals. We are unique vessels with an independent mind/brain. An inalienable function of being a human is that you will think unless you are asleep(arguably even when you are asleep; dreams).

    Choice is inalienable to humans. We think, determine value, judge and choose. It is simply what we are. It is inalienable human behavior.

    This is the premise for anarchy, the inalienable right to choose. Using coercion with a threat of death is a violation of this very fundamental right.

    “No Rulers”

    • Jim Duncan says:

      To expand;

      Often, you will read me describing government as a faux world, or paper and guns bullshit world, magic special words, imaginary lines, etc etc….

      In the real world, as per nature and reality, humans think and choose.

      But then comes along a group of people who organize to have religious ceremonies, say magic words, have special stamps, seals, etc…to write on paper what everyone is to do, be, how to live, etc. …all of which will be made so with the use of coercion and threat of a cage or death.

      This violates the right to choose, as a forced choice is not a choice at all.

      God says we choose. Government says we obey.

      God’s universe simply is. Government isn’t.

      If government was as real as reality, if we obeyed rather than think and choose, then there would be masters, rulers, whom people were wholly dependent upon for direction. People would essentially be vegetables, except for the rulers, of course.

      But that is not the real world. It is a world on paper that conflicts with reality and needs to be forced. Hence paper and guns bullshit world.

      Reality doesn’t need to be forced. It simply is.

      • Jim Duncan says:

        Further,

        As per what I have just explained, Government is dehumanizing. The very premise in which it operates is to criminalize choice, to criminalize being a human.

        It says that you will not choose, You will obey. If you choose rather than obey, you are punished, coerced into choosing obedience, or murdered for choosing otherwise.

        Government is inhumane.

      • Ok, Jim, I get it. So if there is a group of people that decide they want rules for themselves and no one else, then there is no force. If those same people decide that they want a police force for themselves, then there is no force involved. They like their world.

        So along comes Jim….decides that he wants to live with these people but decides that he does not want the rules. It seems to me that Jim just created the atmosphere of violence by trying to move into a group of happy people, who want what they want. If you try to change them, who initiated violence?

        • Jim Duncan says:

          “Ok, Jim, I get it. So if there is a group of people that decide they want rules for themselves and no one else, then there is no force. If those same people decide that they want a police force for themselves, then there is no force involved. They like their world.”

          Whether or not it is force depends on the nature of how their police department operates. However, if they CHOOSE to be coerced/forced, it is not violence because it was not violating their right to self determination.

          “So along comes Jim….decides that he wants to live with these people but decides that he does not want the rules. It seems to me that Jim just created the atmosphere of violence by trying to move into a group of happy people, who want what they want. If you try to change them, who initiated violence?”

          I am not sure what you’re asking here. Wanting is not violence.

  39. Jim Duncan says:

    What is human?

    Humans have the natural instinct of self preservation. It is inalienable behavior of humans to protect the self and/or extensions of the self(family,property).

    The right to defense is inalienable to humans.

  40. Jim Duncan says:

    What is human?

    Humans make and use stuff. We are a naturally mechanically inclined inventive and enginuitive species. We make and use things like tools or other stuff to facilitate our needs or wants. We also trade our time and skills(our life) for stuff that we do not produce, but need or want.

    Trading, making, using and owning stuff is an inalienable human function. It’s what we are and do.

    Property ownership is a natural inalienable right.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    SUFA

    Re: The philosophy of Rights.

    We often speak in absolute terms here regarding “rights”. Because we are Americans and our culture is based on certain theories of “rights” we tend to couch our arguments in terms of those theories. But these are not the only theories or concepts and the arguments have raged for thousands of years.

    So here is a little something to help clear up the muddy waters. Bwahahahahahaha

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/

    • Jim Duncan says:

      There are no muddy waters. It is very clear, very simple.

      What is reality? What is human?

      If you can answer that, then you have essentially defined rights. It’s not complicated. It is simply being a human.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        What is human; Homo sapien.

        What is Reality; Homo sapiens kill each other for food, mates and territory.

        Defined Rights; Homo sapiens have the right to kill other Homo sapiens for food, mates and territory.

        You’re right. It is simply being human.

        • Jim Duncan says:

          Humans eat. If we do not eat, we starve, die. An inalienable condition of being human is that you must eat regularly. Therefore humans have a right to seek/earn/acquire food.

          Having your food stolen is not a right. Being murdered is not a right.

          Playing games with semantics is a right.

        • Rights is a concept, a concept that can only exist in the highest intelligence order of living things.

          Trees have no rights, nor concept of such, and neither do all other animals EXCEPT human beings.

          And in this group called human beings, such concepts may STILL not exist. There is a reason why the ignorant always claim “rights” do not exist, and why the ignorant and the stupid (low IQ) accounts for the vast majority of violent criminals. Such a concept of rights does not rest in their head. This is why primitive tribes do not exercise “rights”. They exercise violence.

          A person who grasps the concepts of rights is ALWAYS a person with an IQ above 100. The rest merely obey by threat of violent force that without such a threat would return to be animals.

          Rights as a concept began as a way to settle disputes without resorting to the “might is right” violent means.

          ALL REDUCTION IN VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY IMPROVES SOCIAL ORDER.
          The higher the social order, the lower that society utilizes violence to settle disputes.

          In a “Rights” based society, the concept of rights is applied to settle disputes WITHOUT violence.

          “this is my car, you have no right to use it”
          …and you do not use my car. A dispute settled without violence.

          If someone, however, disputes RIGHTS, they MUST ALSO ADMIT that they are arguing for the use of violence to settle disputes. There is no third option here. Either we organize or dispute settlements in a non-violent way OR we use violence.

          • ::raises hand::

            I opt for violence.

            Because humans… humans are terrible, vicious, panicky, aggressive, selfish, greedy, short-sighted, tribal creatures, and a lack of government results in a Mad Max hellscape, not utopia. To think otherwise is to deny all evidence in favor of unsupported theory.

            • Indeed, no surprise. What did I say about those with low IQ?

            • Then Mathius, you merely expand violence and utilize “might is right”. Doubtful friend, that you would have survived if indeed what you claim is true.

              But it is not true. Civilization exists. It exists because of concepts such as rights. And the challenge of the future is to have fewer of you and more of me, and we are getting there, century by century.

          • Jim Duncan says:

            “Rights is a concept, a concept that can only exist in the highest intelligence order of living things. Trees have no rights, nor concept of such, and neither do all other animals EXCEPT human beings.”

            Your reasoning is inconsistent. You posit rights are dependent upon recognition thereof, which is dependent upon intellect. …as if the lesser intelligent or lesser beings do not have inalienable conditions to their existence.

            For example: Self preservation instinct is the premise for the right to defense. All creatures have a right to protect their lives. You cannot tell a dog not to bite when it is cornered.

            A tree has a right to defense as well, but are not equipped with very good defenses. But you cannot tell a tree not to produce toxins to ward off insects.

            Do stupid people not have rights?

            • No, my reasoning is NOT inconsistent. You are new here (to me). You’ll come to realize I am probably the MOST consistent person here.

              No, rights exist as a concept. Do you agree or not?
              To hold a concept, you need intelligence. Some how, some where “it has to appear in your head”. This is why animals do not have rights. They cannot conceive of them, though WE DO on their behalf (animal rights)

              No matter how you argue it, a dog’s self-preservation is NOT the dog enforcing his right of self-defense. It is instinct as a matter of its life, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, the dog also bites and attacks for many other instinctual reasons, such as taking the food from another dog. At no time does the dog think “well, that dog has a RIGHT to defend himself from theft”

              HUMANS DEFINE THESE TWO THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
              We understand the use of violence to defend ourselves WHILE AT THE SAME TIME we understand using violence on another person to get food IS NOT a right.

              Even more banal are trees. No tree thinks “today I will create a poison to ward off insects”. Such things in trees exist by NATURAL SELECTION. Trees that weren’t destroyed multiplied. Those that were destroyed did not. Ergo, we have such trees.

              Stupid people do have rights because smart people have the concept.

              • “No, my reasoning is NOT inconsistent.”

                “To hold a concept, you need intelligence.”

                “This is why animals do not have rights. They cannot conceive of them, though WE DO on their behalf (animal rights)”

                “Stupid people do have rights because smart people have the concept.”

              • Just A Citizen says:

                BF

                My old Pirate friend. You may be consistent but it seems your ideas on “rights” have evolved. I remember you closer to the magical inalienable theory at one time. It went something like, Rights exist naturally, man has to discover them.

                That seems a little different than rights being simply a concept developed by humans.

                Via Reason I might add.

                Good to see you here once again.

              • JAC, old friend.
                My holding of rights is utterly unmoved.

                But understanding that simple minds cannot hold the concept is equally true, no less then a man who cannot carry 100lbs on his back cannot carry 200lbs on his back.

                I believe it was Livingstone in the jungle who said this (though I maybe mistake)

                “I live with savages and they do what savages do.
                I am a civilized man and act civilized towards them even though they are savages and act as savages upon me,”

            • Think about this.

              Slavery has existed for tens of thousands of years as a part of human existence, yet, for most part of the world, slavery no longer exists.

              Humans did NOT consider the rights of slaves. They held no concept that a slave was “equal” to the slaver, hence, had none. You, back in that time, WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT since the thinking of the time absolutely precluded any thought of such a thing.

              When a monk in Spain, seeing the tragedy of the Spanish upon the South American tribes, given his religious teaching said “Are these men not also God’s children?” …. and the concept of slavery became disputed.

              It took 300 years later (and other things to manifest) before slavery was seen to be immoral and contrary to human rights.

              • So if you do not agree with or recognize rights, they don’t exist?

              • For that person no.
                I do not know how you can possibly force a concept into a brain that is unable to understand it.

                How can you force the concept of simple rights into the brain of a dog? I have no idea how you can do this. Like the people 300 years ago, no matter how hard you would argue, they could not conceive of such a thing as rights for slaves.

                But for for you, yes. You conceive it, so they exist and are as real as your nose.

              • Jim Duncan says:

                Perception is reality and unless understood and recognized, rights do not exist. This is your position? Sounds kind of like solipsism.

                I find that objectionable. Understanding and recognition is not what rights are based. Just because you do not understand, doesn’t negate. The Earth is a sphere. Regardless of who may argue or perceive, or believe it to be flat, It is no less spherical.

                Someone can say that the right to free will is not real, and act accordingly. But free will still is, and you are still going to decide. Your rights are not gone, but simply violated.

                What is the basis of rights? I posit that it is about what is natural and unalienable. Hence the right to defense, the right to pursue happiness, etc, but not a right to life, as humans are not immortal. Understand the right to life as absolute immortality, and you will still die some day.

              • No, CONCEPTS are not THINGS. You are confusing the difference between concepts (government, rights, society) and THINGS (trees, person, action).

                What is a forest? It is a CONCEPT we have defined TO DESCRIBE A GROUP OF TREES. You cannot TOUCH A FOREST, when you try all you do is TOUCH A TREE.

                So if you have no CONCEPT of what a forest is, what do you see? You merely see a TREE, and no amount of you stumping around claiming a Forest is REALITY manifests a FOREST IN REALITY. Forest exists IN YOUR HEAD AS A CONCEPT DEFINING A GROUP OF TREES.

                Unless you can hold such a concept, THERE IS NO FOREST FOR YOU.

              • I posit it is a condition of that which is unalienable, which is a concept based in reality.

                Reality is that you have lungs. Reality is that you need them and air or you die. It is an inalienable condition of human.

                The concept is in recognition of that reality. The concept is rightfully breathing. Operative word; rightful.

                I think the debate here is that you seem to putting an artificial qualifier onto rights, as if it is relative to intellect and understanding, as if inalienable is irrelevant or something.

                it goes back to the dog. He’s a dog. He has a right to be a dog because that’s what reality says he is. Whether he knows anything or not, he is still a dog by order of nature, and dogs have the inalienable instinct of self preservation, hence a natural right to defense as much as a right to breathe or poop or whatever dogs do.

              • Pray tell, how can a concept be “unalienable”?
                Yes concepts are based on reality. Grouping trees which are real into a concept is valid.

                But concepts are NOT like your lungs. You may have no idea what a concept means, but you live just fine.

                “Artificial qualifier”? Methinks you have it backwards, where you elevate a mere concept to be granted equal standing in reality.

                He has no right to be a dog. HE IS A DOG, and the concept of rights simply does not apply.
                Whether or not you have the right to free speech or not, YOU ARE STILL A PERSON.

                Instinct is not the same as rights. There is no “natural” right to self-preservation , as if a CONCEPT somehow is infused into INSTINCT. It ain’t.

              • Jim Duncan says:

                Reality is what it is. Whatever words we use to describe it, whatever we may think about it, however we may conceptualize it, it is what it is and not what it isn’t. Reality is fact, truth.

                Unalienable/inalienable is a word to describe said reality, to describe a condition thereof. It is a recognition of fact, and not an abstract or idea(at least not in this context). If it is an inherent part of something real, then it is inalienable reality.

                You have rights simply because you exist, as they are based on that which is inalienable to you. They are based on what is a real human being, and regardless of your culture or intellect or race or religion, etc. None of that changes or alienates rights. You simply have to exist to have them.

                But then you come along and try to tell me that it is dependent upon understanding and recognition, the ability to conceptualize rights.

                According to your ‘logic’, stupid people don’t have rights because they don’t understand them, that any entity lacking the understanding(or ability thereof) of rights simply doesn’t have them.

                A human IS a human, and therefore rightful in being a human, stupid or aware or not. Thus the same reasoning should apply consistently to all other living entities. They have rights simply because they exist, they are rightful in existing as nature dictates.

                A dog IS a dog, and therefore rightful in BEING a dog and doing what dogs do.

                You and I each have an IQ of about 80. I have a sandwich. You are hungry. You bash me over the head and take my sandwich. Was I violated? No, because we are both laymen?

                ….as if rights are dependent upon perception?

                Does Mathius not have rights because he doesn’t recognize rights(as is convenient to whatever position he argues)?

                Does a two year old human not have rights because they are still in that “me” stage, with no understanding of self awareness and ignorant of such concepts as rights?

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    On Tuesday, The New York Times published a tweet attributed to now-resigned national security advisor Michael Flynn. It simply said, “scapegoat.” But as it turned out, the message originated from a fake account masquerading as Flynn. NY Times editors issued an apology for the mistake but not in time for both House Minority Leader Pelosi and Dem Rep. Elijah Cummings repeated it during a news conference.

    Cummings mentioned the single-word tweet and said it’s time “to hold a public hearing with Flynn to get to the bottom of this.” Pelosi spoke after Cummings, saying, “I didn’t know until I heard from our colleague that the tweet was ‘scapegoat.’”

    “The inference to be drawn from his statement is other people have blame that should be shared in all of this,” Pelosi added.

    Both Democrats’ staff realized the error after it was too late but informed their bosses. Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill said, “We will have a correction in our transcript.” Then he deferred blame away from Pelosi: “Mr. Cummings brought this up and Leader Pelosi was repeating what he said. This was not in the Leader’s prepared remarks.

  43. Jim Duncan says:

    If you love someone, set them free. If they return, they are yours. If not, they never were.

    And if they die trying to come home…?

  44. Flynn resigns because he lied and is a liability.
    He became a liability when it was disclosed he talked to the Russian Ambassador before Obama left office.
    It was leaked that he did so.
    Now, it turns out…..so far…his phone conversation was taped…..it is inferred that it was taped illegally.
    The Democratic spokesman says…why are you focusing on a wire tap of a high official by an Obama administration and the normal protocol not followed.
    The Democratic Spokesman says you should be focusing on the fact that Trump has particular ties to Russia…..

    I say….why did you wire tap an American citizen without a warrant. And then, it is leaked out of the CIA.

    • In the same tone why worry about who hacked Podesta and the DNC and not the content of the messages? Seems the Dems are playing both ways.

      The illegal wire tape is a felony. If former acting AG Yates approved it w/o a court order, throw her rear in jail. Start enforcing the law and watch these rats either jump ship or straighten out.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The ends justify the means. But in all reality Colonel, some cat named Snowden this was happening, and he is the enemy. Maybe there should be some rethinking of how whistle blowers are viewed. Not that Snowden ISN’T a traitor, but we have been warned that this was going on. It’s use was inevitable. Now, it’s just being used because the people didn’t do anything about it. it will only get worse.

  45. Now, all you philosophers out there…….you are now the POTUS. Your administration has been rocked by the resignation Flynn…..and rightly so. ( Meaning, no argument from D13 ).

    Russia has sent a spy ship along the Eastern Coast of the United States. Not the regular little ships that observe, but a ship that is designed to intercept all radio, telecommunication, and private communications. ( Cold War Style ). 70 statute miles off the coast.

    Russia has now deployed a missile in violation of a Treaty. From the NYT..”The ground-launched cruise missile at the center of American concerns is one that the Obama administration said in 2014 had been tested in violation of a 1987 treaty that bans American and Russian intermediate-range missiles based on land. The Obama administration had sought to persuade the Russians to correct the violation while the missile was still in the test phase. Instead, the Russians have moved ahead with the system, deploying a fully operational unit.

    Russia Is Moving Ahead With Missile Program That Violates Treaty, U.S. Officials Say OCT. 19, 2016
    Vladimir Putin Exits Nuclear Security Pact, Citing ‘Hostile Actions’ by U.S. OCT. 3, 2016
    Michael Flynn Resigns as National Security Adviser FEB. 13, 2017
    With Michael Flynn Gone, Russia Sees a Different Trump FEB. 14, 2017
    Iran Launches a Missile, Testing Trump’s Vows of Strict Enforcement JAN. 30, 2017

    Administration officials said the Russians now have two battalions of the prohibited cruise missile. One is still located at Russia’s missile test site at Kapustin Yar in southern Russia near Volgograd. The other was shifted in December from that test site to an operational base elsewhere in the country, according to a senior official.

    China now claiming parts of the South China Sea and building military bases and claiming extensions of 200 miles territorial limits taking in other Island Nations.

    December, 2016….The Obama administration, not content to let an opportunity to antagonize Russia pass by, has announced the acceleration of pre-planned troop deployments to counter “Russian aggression” in eastern Europe.

    THere are a couple more interesting developments that goes along with a current 57% reduction in US armed forces and readiness. But, let’s stop here…..

    What do you do if anything?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: