My Favorite Socialist

trump-jr.-ocasio-cortez-470x600-2

Ocasio-Cortez will be the gift that keeps giving.  After this meme, referring to Venezuela, my favorite Socialist decided to reply with this:

There it is, the Socialist mentality in one Tweet 😀

Advertisements

Comments

  1. I hope that the Crat leadership can’t shut her up because she is going to be a blast. She might even be able to make politics fun agains 😀

  2. Dale A Albrecht says:

    In the last series of postings and the comments on Bush I’s passing, I believe it was gman having served in the 1st Gulf War complimented Bush on the handling through his Generals which is correct.

    However, he was dragging his feet and reluctant to get involved. It took Margaret Thatcher and the British to brow beat him and the US into action. Remember all the way back into the 50’s and the Shah of Iran. It was the British oil interests being threatened by the nationalization of the oil production by Middle Eastern countries at that time, not ours. They no longer had the power to stop that process and engaged us into overthrowing the PM of Iran who wanted to nationalize those interests. We had NO need for oil from that region. Neither then nor now.

    I feel it’s the British who are the biggest global manipulators but haven’t the military power to protect their interests so they maneuver their American cousins to really handle the biggest part if the action and thusly be the scapegoat.

    Does anyone think it was just some rogue former MI6 analyst named Steele with the dossier to discredit and derail Trump.

    • Libya was pushed by the French and English as well. We had no dog in that fight but Hillary wanted her war.

    • Trump scared everyone so it would be reasonable to believe they worked to defeat him.

      I have never understood why the Russians would prefer Trump over Hillary. Trump is a strong minded person. Hillary is weak, vulnerable, reactive and petty. The Russians have the dope on Hillary through the Uranium One scandal and all her emails. All they had to do was pull the right strings. The only reason to fear her as that weak person could start a war.

      The Russian interference in our election was the normal operation of sowing discord. They certainly got their money’s worth this time. They must be laughing their butts off in the Kremlin.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        It is interesting to see the DNC, Hillary’s campaign and Russia working in concert. Want to be de-friended quickly by a leftist friend? Just ask why it was ok for Hillary to pay Russian Agents through a third party spy for information (real or bogus) on an opposition candidate? Dat, is one very hot potato!

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        That’s for sure. T-ray……how long a drive is it from Sonora to Bear Valley?

  3. “Socialist economy” is an oxymoron. I’m not even kidding; socialism is politics, which is the opposite of the Economic Method.

    And she has sanpaku eyes.

    • Yes, she most certainly has some freaky eyes.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Sorry Kent but Socialism has always been defined as a socio/economic system. You cannot separate economics from politics. It is in fact defined by ownership of the means of production.

      Free market captialism is an economic system which dictates a certain political or social system. They are always connected.

      • Socialism doesn’t ever use the Economic Method, but relies entirely on the Political Method. Thus to refer to “socialist economics” is a lie.

        I refer you to this comment by Black Flag from the SUFA archives: https://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/the-best-course-of-action-is-nothing/#comment-4945
        If you want the in-depth explanation you’ll need to read “Our enemy, the State” by Albert J. Nock (It’s not really very long).

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Sorry mate, but you don’t get to re-write history or change the meaning of words. That would make you no better than those you criticize.

          • ” Sorry mate, but you don’t get to re-write history or change the meaning of words. ”

            Is that any different than creating an alternate reality on paper and forcing everyone to comply with a threat of death? Your ability to rationalize the irrational never ceases to amaze me.

            Kent is correct. You cannot use the political method(FORCE) and economic method(CHOICE) simultaneously. Or to put it another way; there is economics that is rooted in choice, and there is everything else. Everything else(like socialism) is usually forced, therefore not economics.

            Socialism is a political system claiming dominion over an economy, not really an economic system.

            • Socialism is a political system claiming dominion over an economy, not really an economic system.

              Almost, Socialism is a political system that controls the economy. Venezuela is a perfect example, price controls have failed miserably.

              Since this is a semantics issue and I can see both sides, once the Socialist government controls the economy, logic would then call it a “Socialist economy”.

              • How about a “socialist uneconomy”? “Anti-economy”?

              • I would like to take this moment to point out to you that the US is and has always been a socialist economy.

                Even when it was roaring.

              • Absolutely right. The US is socialist. Some economics still manage to happen around the edges, but I’m sure they’ll close those loopholes as soon as they can get away with it.

              • Okay, what happened to we’re not socialists, we just have a few socialist programs.

              • Hey, Kent,

                Maybe you can do what BF was never able to: paint me a REALISTIC portrait of a world without government.

                I do not believe that humans are designed to operate well in such environments. Though, historically, that “government” might have been a tribal leader, we have always had government.

                BF’s argument always seemed to boil down to “the people” will spontaneously reward good actors and punish evil doers. Though the mechanism for knowing who was good (and the intrinsic generosity of The People) was never established. Conversely, a boycott only works when you know who is actually responsible (for example, how do you know who littered their trash in front of your house?) and have the capacity to punish them (if I sell widgets to another community – you have no ability to boycott me). I find neither to be credible without an overarching government invested with the power to investigate and punish. Further, I do not find it credible that The People will willingly donate sufficient amounts to create public works such as large-scale infrastructure projects. Nor do I believe that people will factor in their own externalities (oh, yea, I polluted the river, but my portion was only a little bit, and anyway, it’s a problem for those downstream).

                Lastly, I ask, how does this society defend itself against an organized aggressor? For example, if the US breaks up into anarchist (or extreme libertarian) communities, what stops the Canadians from taking over? Surely, The People of Bozeman Montana cannot stand up to the Canadian Army. Would it be expected that other city-states would come to its aid? What makes you think that The People of Tuscaloosa are going to stick their necks out for them? And, even banded together, they won’t have the large-scale military to develop and produce tanks and jets and whatnot. It would be (roughly) equivalent to the US Army verse the Native Americans – sure they put up a good fight, but the outcome was inevitable.

                Perhaps you can paint the picture better? To be sure, it would be nice to live in a world where a crazed orange man does not have access to nuclear weapons and influence over the economy. And, sure, the government sucks at its job but, as Mr. Twain said, it is the worst option except for all the others.

              • I’d like that too. POS ideas are way to utopian.

              • “Socialism is a political system claiming dominion over an economy, not really an economic system. – Almost, Socialism is a political system that controls the economy. Venezuela is a perfect example, price controls have failed miserably. Since this is a semantics issue and I can see both sides, once the Socialist government controls the economy, logic would then call it a “Socialist economy”. ”

                Controlling an economy is what makes it not really an economy, because an economy is based on choice of value, not forced value.

                There is the real world where people are individuals who determine the value of their own life and property. This includes choice in economic transactions/trade/barter. In the real world, people have problems that need to be solved with goods and services. Those goods and services are supplied accordingly. Both consumers and suppliers decide the value of those solutions and thus determine what is known as market value.

                Then there is the government world where people are individuals subject to whatever govern-god says the value of their life and property are, including economic transactions/trade/barter. In govern-god world, it is supply/demand/government.

                Socialism, as most define it, is one example of an unreal economy. Here is another way of looking at it; 2+2=4 because it does. Trying to get 4 out of 2(+1)+2 ..or.. 2+2(+3) doesn’t work.

                Socialism can have it’s place within an economy, however, IF it is voluntary. By that I mean that if a group of people wanted to invest into a socialist system like a chain of hospitals or a food bank or something, if they decided the value of said socialist program was worth their investment. At best it will produce mediocrity, but it’s their choice.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              POS

              Yes, it is absolutely significantly different.

              One is a definition. The other is the outcome or affect of govt. actions. Creating a govt. does not alter nor attempt to alter meaning or reality.

              Socialism is a political/socio/economic system. Just as is Fascism and Communism and Capitalism.

              There is not Singular “Economy” which can be violated by Socialism.

              • There is a thing called a market. It is based on supply/demand. Supply is set by demand of solutions to problems, which is rooted in individual choice of value. That’s how it works.

                If it’s not that. It’s not a real economy. Whether it is socialist or capitalist or whatever, if it includes forced/coerced choices, it’s not real.

                What do you call a dessert cake with a cup of salt, a turd, 4 pounds of sugar, 30 eggs, 1/2 cup of asphalt, 1/4 cup of shredded pencil leads, and a pound of beef baked into it?

                What do you call an economy with government socialism baked into it?

    • No sir, I cannot verify THAT statement. But, I think we need to define terrorist. Is a gang member, whose job it is to “terrorize” a community, A terrorist by definition? In this context, we catch more than 10 per day. We identify them by tattoos and “reading” eyes. We also have developed some significant profiles.

      If you wish to identify terrorist in the common definition of bombers or eastern…..I can only verify in my sector, which runs from Del Rio to Presidio….in 6 months, we have caught 3 known terrorist types…..this means they have knowledge of explosive techniques and have been identified from previous records and are of middle eastern origin. We have caught 9 “unknowns” but DNA testing reveals Eastern European lineage and no known terrorist ties however, in our profiling, we also know that Eastern European in brand new Under Armor jump suits….crossing our borders at non entry points…are not refugees or sight seeing. They carry no identification, no weaponry, and no food or water. They are NOT our friend. They do, however, speak excellent English until the interrogators show up….then they conspicuously can’t speak a word. The last 3 had Georgian accents…and we ain’t talking Georgia, USA.

  4. T Ray……my answer in moderation again.

  5. Hello? mathiusized again….

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Since we are on the subject of Socialist type governments and the minions who believe in it, lets look at a major issue that is related. CARBON TAX…………

    I suggest you read the following completely. Make sure to note the many economically ignorant arguments. Ocasio Cortez is amazing once again. This would have worked if only done decades ago, but we do not know for sure it would have worked, but it doesn’t matter now.

    Perhaps the reason people reject more taxes is not that it is just a tax, but they recognize there will be no end because the goal is to stop burning fossil fuels. So what does raising more revenue from carbon accomplish? It stuffs the coffers of the elites, that is all folks.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/09/carbon-tax-climate-change-environmentalists-1052210

  7. By the way….a special thanks to Mr. Trump and his administration……we an now sell directly to Europe without State Department approval…..he has opened up that market for us with no price restrictions.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    While the decision is bothersome, in particular and due to revealing something about two supposed conservative justices, I think much of the reaction from the right is a little over blown at this point. The court should have dealt with the underlying legal question given that it goes to Federal law and Constitutional protections of equal protection and privileges.

    https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/12/10/scotus-gives-planned-parenthood-constitutional-right-public-funds/

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    I guess I can rest easily now that I know, thanks to our anarchist friends, that I do not live in the real world. This is all just make believe. The REAL economy is not the one I have to deal with every day.

    So I guess that since it is not REAL I can just ignore it. Hell, I don’t need to play the game anymore. If I want something it will just appear to me at the quantity and price I want based on REAL economics, instead of this fantasy that surrounds me.

    Or does the fantasy prevent the REAL economy from ever being visible. Oh me, oh my, we are so lost in the make believe we don’t know what is real or not. Ah damn, maybe this is the Matrix after all.

    • Reality is reality. Statists cannot see a large portion of it because their perception has been altered, typically from birth. They are literally(as in the technical definition) experiencing delusions and illusions, cognitive dissonance having to rationalize their false beliefs against the real world.

      If I decorate my living room with plaques and fancy curtains, special furniture and whatnot, wear a priest outfit, then do a special dance and chant special words, then write on fancy stationary that I’m a god of the natural universe and that all must obey my every command and that reality shall bend to my will, what happens? Nothing. I just look like an idiot doing a bunch of stupid nonsensical bullshit.

      But you have consistently argued in favor of the legitimacy of such nonsense for about 9 or 10 years right here at SUFA. It’s not real. There is no magical transformation that takes place to give anyone super human status when they go to state-church ceremonies. There is no popular spell that is cast upon anyone to make them god.

      And that is just for starters. There is a lot more, but I like that one because it is a core false belief.

  10. “I’d like that too. POS ideas are way to utopian.”

    You live in a dystopian police state and cannot see reality because you’ve been brainwashed from birth to see your brand of systematic violence as the only solution.

    You simply cannot comprehend freedom and liberty and thus demand slavery upon everyone. People like you are the problem. That applies to most of the people here at SUFA.

    How do you get your way without forcing it onto others? By first recognizing that you and everyone else are not the same person with the same wants needs and values.

    “I want a chicken sandwich, therefore everyone should eat chicken or be punished with violence.” <— Statist method.

    "I want a chicken sandwich, therefore I will spend the money I earned to purchase a chicken sandwich." <—- Libertarian method.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      POS

      At least you anarchists are consistent. Whenever you argue with others you always accuse them of being stupid or blind. We unlearned just do not see reality. Oh, because we are brainwashed. And, we cannot comprehend such concepts as “freedom”.

      Did it ever occur to you that if someone is actually incapable of comprehending something you are wasting your time explaining it to them. Certainly not worth calling them stupid, ignorant, uneducated, etc, etc. etc..

      Well since it is your tribe that falls back on reciting the same mantra, almost word for word, over and over and over, perhaps you are the ones who are denying reality. Kind of “cult like” if you know what I mean.

      • At least you anarchists are consistent. Whenever you argue with others you always accuse them of being stupid or blind.

        Certainly, I have my faults, but a lack of mental acuity probably isn’t amongst them…

        That said, it reminds me of when a teenage yells at their parents how “you just don’t understand” when, in fact, the parent understands perfectly and it is the teenage who is too immature to grasp the wisdom being offered.

        Did it ever occur to you that if someone is actually incapable of comprehending something you are wasting your time explaining it to them. Certainly not worth calling them stupid, ignorant, uneducated, etc, etc. etc..

        I have had many a terrible teacher in my time who (seemingly) thought that the students were too stupid, too unmotivated, to understand the lessons. But it has been my experience that, while this is true of some students, for the majority, it is the failure of the teacher to clearly teach.

        If Mr. POS so lucidly sees his vision of a peaceful and successful anarchy, then it is his failure, not ours, that he cannot paint us a clear portrait. That he thinks it’s our fault for being stupid is absurd.

        Well since it is your tribe that falls back on reciting the same mantra, almost word for word, over and over and over, perhaps you are the ones who are denying reality. Kind of “cult like” if you know what I mean.

        I think the problem – if I must pick on – which they insist on ignoring, which permits their vision to exist is that, while bad actors are in the minority, the damage they can inflict can be catastrophic. And the comparatively few bad actors would be nearly completely unshacked in an anarchist socieity. (and, for the record, I’m not talking about ax murderers – i’m talking about CEO’s and robber barons, etc, about the people who bury industrial waste near schools, and who bust strikes with Pinkertons, and who have no qualms about enslaving people, of cult leaders, and fanatics). The amount of damage they can do is beyond any ability to cope this society might have.

        Anarchy might have worked – maybe – once upon a time – in a hunter / gather kind of word, but it sure as hell doesn’t work in a world with 8 billion people in it and where biological weapons and nuclear bombs are things that exist.

  11. In reply to Mathius (and anyone else who’s interested):

    paint me a REALISTIC portrait of a world without government

    I’d love to, but I can no more do that than the first bully who proposed governing others could have painted the skeptics a realistic portrait of what today’s world would look like with governments. I’m OK with not being psychic and having some unknowns.

    I do not believe that humans are designed to operate well in such environments.

    And yet, we do. I don’t need anyone governing me, and I seriously doubt you need anyone governing you. You know the best course for your own life… or at least many orders of magnitude better than what some bureaucrat believes is the best for you.
    “Though, historically, that ‘government’ might have been a tribal leader, we have always had government.

    Only if you believe leaders equal government. I don’t. Leaders can lead without theft and aggression. If I choose to follow someone without them threatening me, I’m not being governed. If I can stop following that person without being attacked, ostracized, or murdered, then he’s not governing. The difference is consent. I do not consent to be governed, but I have consented to follow someone for a specific, limited purpose several times in my life.

    [The other anarchist’s] argument always seemed to boil down to ‘the people’ will spontaneously reward good actors and punish evil doers.

    Do you continue to do business with someone who cheats you or sells you poisoned food? Or, would you go elsewhere and tell people what the bad actor did to you? Would you go do business with someone you had been warned about?

    Though the mechanism for knowing who was good (and the intrinsic generosity of The People) was never established.

    So how do you know who to v*te for if you can’t know who is good? Or does that not matter in making your choice?
    How do charities survive even when they have to compete with forced support of government “welfare” sucking up the available money? Even people who support welfare programs do it because they are generous; just misguided into believing they can be generous with stuff which doesn’t belong to them. Sounds like evidence that people are intrinsically generous.

    Conversely, a boycott only works when you know who is actually responsible (for example, how do you know who littered their trash in front of your house?) and have the capacity to punish them (if I sell widgets to another community – you have no ability to boycott me).”

    You don’t have to be certain to shun someone (boycott). Because I’m not initiating force nor violating their property rights, I’m not harming them if I’m mistaken. And it is easy to change course if I discover I’m wrong about who did what.

    My next door neighbors litter and throw it into my yard. I haven’t actually seen them (almost!), but the circumstantial evidence is good enough that I shun them. I’m not harming them by shunning them.

    I’m not interested in punishing anyone. Self defense and defense of property from an immediate threat, yes, but punishment after the fact. No. I’m not into revenge.

    And, if a bad guy is selling his widgets in another community I will tell his potential customers in that community why I am boycotting/shunning him. After that, it is up to them. The internet is a good tool for following bad guys around. In fact, it would be better without governments getting in the way and protecting bad guys from the rightful consequences of their behavior.

    I find neither to be credible without an overarching government invested with the power to investigate and punish.

    Why do you believe only a government can do that? Why can’t a voluntarily funded, ad hoc group do what you want? If I want to investigate something, and don’t feel capable of doing so myself, I will hire someone to do it for me and when the job is done I can stop paying them. I don’t expect you to be on the hook in perpetuity for something I may never need. And, again, I have no interest in punishing anyone. Do what you want, but not on my behalf.

    Further, I do not find it credible that The People will willingly donate sufficient amounts to create public works such as large-scale infrastructure projects.

    So you’re saying those things aren’t necessary. Because if they are necessary, and people don’t have the option of robbing their neighbors to pay for it, they’ll chip in or do without. If they are still not willing to fund it, it needs to die.

    Nor do I believe that people will factor in their own externalities (oh, yea, I polluted the river, but my portion was only a little bit, and anyway, it’s a problem for those downstream)

    When those downstream can seek restitution for your portion of the damage you’ve caused them, you might change your mind. And, in such a society, the tools to discover who added what to a stream will improve– just because of the potential for profit.

    Even in the current situation where government protects people from the real consequences of their bad behavior, I do my very best to avoid letting trash blow out of my car on a windy day (which is most days around here) just because that’s not what I want to do to my surroundings. And I pick up massive amounts of litter tossed by those who are less responsible– without asking government to punish them.

    Lastly, I ask, how does this society defend itself against an organized aggressor? For example, if the US breaks up into anarchist (or extreme libertarian) communities, what stops the Canadians from taking over?”

    What would the Canadians “take over” if there is no government to surrender to them? As it is, all they have to do is make the government surrender and they’ve taken over They can move into the offices, use the “public” records, and easily become the new tyrant. Without a central “authority” to replace it would be much harder. You’d basically have to get each individual to surrender, one at a time. And for what? People who are not brainwashed into paying “taxes” aren’t going to suddenly believe “taxation” is legitimate. They won’t suddenly believe and respect the counterfeit “laws” which the new ruler would try to impose. Plus, they would recognize they have a natural human right (and obligation) to kill– in defense– every government employee they encounter. The only reason people are too scared to do so now is that the “society” around them has been fooled into calling government something other than what it is.

    Surely, The People of Bozeman Montana cannot stand up to the Canadian Army. Would it be expected that other city-states would come to its aid?

    Again, I doubt they’d ever have to since there would be nothing for Canada to gain, but just hypothetically– I wouldn’t count on city-states, because we are talking about a free society, not a government-infested one. Would individuals come to their aid? Why wouldn’t anyone? Lots of people still sign up for the military without being forced to because they want the excitement of being allowed to shoot people (“the enemy”). I don’t expect that to change.

    What makes you think that The People of Tuscaloosa are going to stick their necks out for them?

    What makes you think none of them would? The old ads in Soldier of Fortune tell a different story.

    And, even banded together, they won’t have the large-scale military to develop and produce tanks and jets and whatnot.

    You think all those things will just go away? No one would collect and maintain them in the absence of government? And without a BATFE and other gangs forbidding weapon development, those big scale things might be obsolete soon anyway. In fact, I’d bet on it.
    “It would be (roughly) equivalent to the US Army verse the Native Americans – sure they put up a good fight, but the outcome was inevitable.”

    Except that the Natives had no concept of the types of weapons (and diseases) the army was using against them. No way to buy or manufacture or invent. Do you think the people of Bozeman would share that disadvantage? I don’t.

    Perhaps you can paint the picture better?

    I can try, but I’ve discovered over the years that government extremists won’t listen. They want to know exactly how every detail will work out in a free society, with no doubt whatsoever. Something they can’t even do in defense of their own position. What I see in every single case is an astounding lack of ability to think outside their box– lack of imagination and lack of problem-solving skills. But, occasionally I’ll give it a shot, anyway. Just for kicks.

    To be sure, it would be nice to live in a world where a crazed orange man does not have access to nuclear weapons and influence over the economy.”

    I wouldn’t want anyone having that kind of illegitimate power.

    And, sure, the government sucks at its job…

    Maybe you are mistaken as to what government sees as its job. I don’t think the “job” is legitimate, but I think government does it well. Like the Mafia.

    “…as Mr. Twain said, it is the worst option except for all the others.

    That’s the same thing everyone has said about their favorite flavor of government (if Twain actually even said it). It’s a great way to make people give up on looking for a better way. “Sure he beats you, controls you, and sometimes rapes you. He’s the worst husband… except for all the others.” Yeah, that doesn’t work either.

    • (And, I’m sorry but I’ve already spent more time on this than I can afford. But it was fun, and gave me a good blog post for later.)

    • Do you continue to do business with someone who cheats you or sells you poisoned food? Or, would you go elsewhere and tell people what the bad actor did to you? Would you go do business with someone you had been warned about?

      Perhaps not… but people seem perfectly willing to ignore bad actors even WITH government. Apple uses factories bordering on slavery where they have nets so that they can’t commit suicide. Nike has repeatedly been caught using child labor in Southeast Asia. Walmart has been repeatedly charged with wage-theft. I could go on for days.

      Yet people continue to work for these companies (due to lack of better options) and buy from them.

      I would posit that, as bad as it currently is, it would be orders of magnitude worse without government to act as a (weak half-assed) check.

      I think back to the old days of the Trucking System, or to the industrial revolution wherein people died constantly in factories. But people needed to work – they needed the income – they took what work could be had. I’m sure there were plenty of enterpreneurs who wanted to treat their employees right.. but (A) they were in the minority and (B) paying well and providing an OSHA-approved workplace are expensive, so they weren’t competitive. And those people you and BF imagine would boycott don’t.

      It’s the same reason people buy from Apple, knowing full well that they’re basically slaver-owners – because the Invisible Hand demands it.

      The Invisible Hand does not care about worker’s rights or workers’ safety or even product safety. It only cares about supply and demand. Externalities don’t count.

      By way of example to that last point: Big Tobacco managed to keep government out of their business for decades after it should have been clear that smoking was harmful. They knew it was a dangerous product, and they LIED. And they advertised the lie. And they marketed to kids. And they succeeded. It wasn’t until the late 90’s that things started to change.

      Now, certainly, I think it’s your ABSOLUTE right to poison yourself. But take government out of the picture and play it out. These companies were so sociopathic, they KNEW they were killing entire generations, yet they actively marketed to children with a friendly camel and a manly cowboy. They advertised their weight loss benefits and “healthy” side affects of Virginia Slims. How does your system handle this? What happens when they start selling meth as a weight loss drug – because you can be damned certain they would if they could?

      “Perhaps you can paint the picture better?”

      I can try, but I’ve discovered over the years that government extremists won’t listen. They want to know exactly how every detail will work out in a free society, with no doubt whatsoever. Something they can’t even do in defense of their own position. What I see in every single case is an astounding lack of ability to think outside their box– lack of imagination and lack of problem-solving skills. But, occasionally I’ll give it a shot, anyway. Just for kicks.

      I think the problem is that you underestimate the damage a few bad actors can do, and you overestimate the generosity of spirit of the average Joe.

      People are not good. They are self-interested.

      It’s why, I think, we invented religion. Because, without a big guy in the clouds shaking his finger at us and threatening eternal damnation, a lot of people would not be very nice. Many would – most, even – but it only takes a small percentage to really ruin your day.

      At the end of the day, the reason there is crime is because, contrary to adage, crime pays. It pays very well. And, without government to act as a (feeble) check, it would pay even better. Sure, many “crimes” might no longer be considered “crimes” at all, but they would still be detrimental to societal welfare just the same.

      To sum up: People are the worst.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        There are 476 Apartments located on the block at 171st Street between Broadway and Ft. Washington Avenue in Manhattan where I grew up. Assuming that there are an average of four persons (probably low because poor Irish have been replaced by poor Dominicans) per apartment, that gives us well over 1,000 residents on a 250 ft. long street. THAT is going to govern itself? Really? There are days when if a Fire truck needed to get to a fireplug or to even get to mid block for a fire it would be impossible due to double parking and illegal block the pump parking. Do not try and tell me how, if the sirens went off, all the “good” citizens would rush out and move their cars. I have been stuck on the inside of a double parked car more than once honking away for hours. Simplistic yes but that’s the way life works. Who the hell am I going to shun?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          While your argument reveals today it does not necessarily negate the other arguments. Not totally. You, and most of us, ignore the fact that how people act today is largely due to the presence of Govt. beginning long ago.

          Can people behave differently? Of course they can. Just go to the country and see how those folks get by. They represent the possibility of how the city folks could operate.

          Now, there is also truth in that city folks can not be as well equipped, literally, for all such things. That there is in fact great efficiency achieved in centralizing things like fire fighting.

          It was once said that our form of govt. was for a moral people, and without that moral foundation it would not last. The same is even more true for the anarchist society. This is why it has worked in human history, when the groups of people were small enough and similar enough to make it work.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            And I totally agree. The more dense a population gets, the more you will need some outside “control”. I’ve always been a fan of D. Boone since I first read the Boone “Classics Illustrated” comic book in the 1950’s which I believe I still have squirreled away somewhere. As soon as they started having government, Boone thought it time to move on. You see the same in Heinlein’s books though he was interesting because the early books can certainly be considered statist. But by “Stranger’ and “time Enough for Love” he was far down the rational anarchist path. I actually hope someday that people start to recognize RAH for the philosopher he actually was. Many of his”theories” deserve a 301 level course, three credits!

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              Thinking further, a well run Robert A. Heinlein major resulting in a BA would beat the living crap out of most Poli-Sci degrees! Time to re-read the Canon if I can ever get off the WW 1 thing. So many books….never enough time!

              • Is Heinlein our model now?

                “When a place gets crowded enough to require ID’s, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.”

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                There is a good bio out there from wayback on Daniel Boone. That’s what I reference above. I read the Classics Illustrated version when I was probably 9 or 10. What it stressed over and over was how when things got too civilized, Boone would just head West.

                Heinlein is a conundrum. The guy who wrote “Stranger” and “Methuselah Children” and “time Enough for Love” is also the guy who wrote “Starship Troopers” an unusually designed but nonetheless superstate. He probably came closest in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” to explaining how we need government. After all Luna’s revolt modeled after the American Revolution was against an increasingly tyrannical central earth government yet by the end of the book, “Manny” one of the central characters was talking about leaving Luna for the asteroids because it was getting too civilized. Remember, his early books were almost Commie Pinko. The Master was a thinker and like so many, Dos Passos, Koestler, he evolved.

                Franklin did have it right, “A Republic, IF you can keep it”. We have, longer than most, yet it is in the nature of humanity that we FUBAR it! The laughingly ridiculous names, “Peoples Republic” or Democratic Socialist Government of…” are exactly that, laughable.We too will eventually succumb but still “pretend” we are who we were even when we finally elect our “dictator for life”. After all, as the Chinese have discovered, it is just SO much easier.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        And now I see the tobacco giants are investing heavily into the marijuana industry

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      If I remember my old friends and family in the Bozeman MT area, they are better armed than the Canadian military. Besides the Canadian forces are used to having a docile and complient population to deal with.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Canada just might lose Alberta

      • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Have you ever seen a moose? If they can deal with a moose, they can deal with a Bozemanian.

        I’m going to go with Bozemanian, but special mention to Bozos, Bozewarians, and Bozemaniacs.

        See also: https://imgur.com/gallery/aj4iuMB

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Oh yes. Pretty close to nose to nose with one on a trail in the Teton’s

          Maine, northern New Hampshire and northern Vermont had a lot of Messes, I know moose.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Dale

        Bozeman has been overrun by left leaning easterners and Californians. A once shining star of good ol’ western values is now suffering the split personality of one trying to remain western.

        The irony is that even the lefties in Montana have guns. Well at least some of them.

        Depending on your perspective Montana is either considered Southern Alberta or Alberta is considered Northern Montana.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          A once shining star of good ol’ western values is now suffering the split personality

          A split personality? That sounds awful!

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          You’re kidding me!!! I thought it was just Missoula

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Dale

            Bozeman was discovered by the east coast Rich and Famous. It is not the left wing looney bin that Missoula has become, but it is getting closer each year.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Is that where Ted Turner set up camp? I guess the old ranchers I knew being spread out so thinly are being over run by the double espresso caramel latte crowd

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              I thought the liberal crowd was all about birth control and reducing the population. From where I sit they seem to be spreading like a contagion and embracing migrants that are breeding like rabbits

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius, SK

    Re: when govt comes around it is time to move on…………..

  13. https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2018/12/oscars-might-go-without-host-year/

    If people keep listening to the attention and revenge seeking, perpetually offended.I suspect no one, over the age of 11, will be acceptable.

  14. Jeffery C Olsen
    December 7, 2016

    As the holiday season of 1938 came to Chicago, Bob May wasn’t feeling much comfort or joy. A 34-year-old ad writer for Montgomery Ward, May was exhausted and nearly broke. His wife, Evelyn, was bedridden, on the losing end of a two-year battle with cancer. This left Bob to look after their four-year old-daughter, Barbara.

    One night, Barbara asked her father, “Why isn’t my mommy like everybody else’s mommy?” As he struggled to answer his daughter’s question, Bob remembered the pain of his own childhood. A small, sickly boy, he was constantly picked on and called names. But he wanted to give his daughter hope, and show her that being different was nothing to be ashamed of. More than that, he wanted her to know that he loved her and would always take care of her. So he began to spin a tale about a reindeer with a bright red nose who found a special place on Santa’s team. Barbara loved the story so much that she made her father tell it every night before bedtime. As he did, it grew more elaborate. Because he couldn’t afford to buy his daughter a gift for Christmas, Bob decided to turn the story into a homemade picture book.

    In early December, Bob’s wife died. Though he was heartbroken, he kept working on the book for his daughter. A few days before Christmas, he reluctantly attended a company party at Montgomery Ward. His co-workers encouraged him to share the story he’d written. After he read it, there was a standing ovation. Everyone wanted copies of their own. Montgomery Ward bought the rights to the book from their debt-ridden employee. Over the next six years, at Christmas, they gave away six million copies of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer to shoppers. Every major publishing house in the country was making offers to obtain the book. In an incredible display of good will, the head of the department store returned all rights to Bob May. Four years later, Rudolph had made him into a millionaire.

    Now remarried with a growing family, May felt blessed by his good fortune. But there was more to come. His brother-in-law, a successful songwriter named Johnny Marks, set the uplifting story to music. The song was pitched to artists from Bing Crosby on down. They all passed. Finally, Marks approached Gene Autry. The cowboy star had scored a holiday hit with “Here Comes Santa Claus” a few years before. Like the others, Autry wasn’t impressed with the song about the misfit reindeer. Marks begged him to give it a second listen. Autry played it for his wife, Ina. She was so touched by the line “They wouldn’t let poor Rudolph play in any reindeer games” that she insisted her husband record the tune.

    Within a few years, it had become the second best-selling Christmas song ever, right behind “White Christmas.” Since then, Rudolph has come to life in TV specials, cartoons, movies, toys, games, coloring books, greeting cards and even a Ringling Bros. circus act. The little red-nosed reindeer dreamed up by Bob May and immortalized in song by Johnny Marks has come to symbolize Christmas as much as Santa Claus, evergreen trees and presents. As the last line of the song says, “He’ll go down in history.”

  15. test

  16. Canine Weapon says:

    —-

    Ouch… right in the meat department… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  17. The Big Brother Conundrum………..or………are people really that stupid.

    For years, on this site, I have seen various writings about government and their intrusiveness. “Big Brother” is watching. Traffic stop light cameras, information gathering, eyes in the sky….census, IRS……….everybody says that this should not happen.

    Then along comes Google…..as intrusive,if not more, than that of the government…..except you willingly give it to Google…..you give it through credit cards, using them as a search engines, creating data trails, shopping habits….Google has your address, phone number, location, credit card numbers, bank accounts, all of your passwords, all of your medical information, the make of your car and when you bought it….the last time you shopped for anything on line….

    So…who is the real big brother and what it the big deal about government having the information and Google having the information? Both have it and both use it to their advantage.

    The government passes a law that says..”You must submit this information” or face penalty.
    Google introduces programs that says…you must submit this information or you cannot use Google.

    Government sanitizes and discriminates.
    Google sanitizes and discriminates.

    Government collects information and stores it.
    Google collects information and sells it.

    Public or private…..I see no difference. Is the Big Brother issue a conundrum? or Do we now accept it because we like technology. Who is the worse culprit…..a public government that collects information and stores it…..or a private organization that collects information and sells it without permission….

    Like the Google CFO says…” Do you think Google is free? There is a cost…and the cost is data mining.”

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      I can opt out of using Google.

      I can refuse to check the box on my software installation.

      I can decline to sign up for Facebook.

      I cannot You cannot opt out of “government.”

      Google is a choice.

      It may not feel like it, and certainly, they are invasive and aggregate a lot of information on you, but you don’t HAVE to play the game. Hop off the internet. Give fake information to your ISP, use TOR, block cookies and scripts. Not everything will work as well. Everything will be slower and less convenient. But you can CHOOSE anonymity. You are giving your information in exchange for convenience.

      I have several Amazon Echos throughout my ship. They’re awesome I know full well that Amazon is aggregating my data. But that’s my CHOICE. It’s the price I have chosen to pay in exchange for the convenience of the service it offers. (though anyone trying to track my IP through Amazon will find my ship sailing on the salt flats of Northern Utah).

      Likewise, while I might not sign up, many here (JAC, for example) would be thrilled to sign up for a (smaller) government if doing so were voluntary. (though, to call such a thing a government is a wishy-washy concept, but you get the idea). But the fact of the coercion changes matters. JAC doesn’t have a choice – he HAS – to “sign up” for Uncle Sam or Uncle Sam will come and do bad things to him in the middle of the night.

      THAT is the difference: Choice.

      ————-

      By the way, SUFA attempts to track you through the following:
      1. Gravatar
      2. WordPress Stats
      3. Twitter Social Media Plugin
      4. Facebook Social Graph
      5. Double-Click (Google)

      (note: I have blocked these, because Y’AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH)

      • Jus’ like a scurvvy pirate……ye needs t’ continue wha’ ye do best…sinkin’ ships, drinkin’ rum, eatin’ shurros, ‘n chasin’ wenches while enjoyin’ th’ current summer in barbados. Everyone knows ye be nah on th’ salt flats….but ye missed th’ point I was tryin’ t’ make.

        Aye, ye can opt out o’ google….sort o’. If ye ‘ave an android phone ye cannot opt out o’ google. If ye ‘ave pre-installed software on yer ‘puter, ye do nah ‘ave t’ activate yer google search engine but it still monitors ye….this accordin’ t’ th’ grand master o’ Google. It still collects data ‘n reports. If ye choose nah t’ use google search engine, ye can opt in fer a lesser browser, true, but TOR, fer example, still uses a google platform.

        But th’ greater point that I was tryin’ t’ make……scallywags jump on th’ government ’cause o’ no choice ‘n then willingly use google…….t’ th’ same end. Data has been collected, ye be nah private, ‘n yer data be sold in th’ United States ‘n o’erseas….’n then scallywags complain about th’ data that google collects. Be this nah a form o’ hypocrisy?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Colonel

          It is not hypocrisy if you see a difference between the store clerk at Sears and the Govt. enforcer who has the LEGAL authority to use FORCE to make you do what he/she wants.

          I would point out that there is an ever growing outcry against the Big Tech firms collecting and using this data. It seems that many, if not most, Americans truly like their privacy and see no difference between Govt. and a private enterprise.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Aye, ye can opt out o’ google….sort o’. If ye ‘ave an android phone ye cannot opt out o’ google. If ye ‘ave pre-installed software on yer ‘puter, ye do nah ‘ave t’ activate yer google search engine but it still monitors ye….this accordin’ t’ th’ grand master o’ Google. It still collects data ‘n reports. If ye choose nah t’ use google search engine, ye can opt in fer a lesser browser, true, but TOR, fer example, still uses a google platform.

          You can opt out of using a cell phone. You can opt out of using a computer. You can go live in a cabin in the woods and fight grizzly bears in your spare time.

          No one is MAKING give your data to Google.

          Don’t use the internet if you don’t want to. But if you want the perks of the internet, then you’ll either have to jump through some hoops to protect your privacy, or sacrifice that privacy.

          But no one is making you buy these on Amazon.

          • You can opt out of using a cell phone. Can you? How much is a cell phone “required” for business today….go to the floor and trade without a cell phone. I wonder….is there a land line in the Mathius household? ( I know there is not one in the Hammer but there is the new Sat phone equipped hold )….Is it even feasible to opt out? By the same token, you can stop paying your taxes to the government. And this gets into the use of force…..force does not have to be physical….it can be tangible, intangible, and requisite.

            You can opt out of using a computer. Yes you can….but is it feasible? Has technology come so far that you cannot feasibly go back? Therefore, if it is not applicable to drop out….even though you can….are you not forced to follow a set of rules to compete?

            You can go live in a cabin in the woods and fight grizzly bears in your spare time. Yes you can live in a cabin…..but there are so many rules against fighting the “griz”.

            I understand what you are saying but have we come so far……that you can’t really opt out? A slave to technology, whether you want it or not?

          • Don’t use the internet if you don’t want to. But if you want the perks of the internet, then you’ll either have to jump through some hoops to protect your privacy, or sacrifice that privacy. By the same token, no one has to live here either….move to another country, Yes? But, again, is it feasible?

          • OMG! That is hilarious!

            I think I know what I’m taking to the company Christmas party. 🙂

    • Google is evil.

      Everyone middle management up to Sundar Pichai needs to be locked into a building before setting it on fire.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Human rights are not subject to popular opinion.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Hell, Americans can barely even wrap their heads around the idea of not subjecting other’s rights to popular opinion when it DOESN’T directly impact on themselves.

      You’re basically asking people: “should we oppress other people in order to make you feel safer and / or to hoard economic benefits?”

      You might as well be asking “can we murder a billionaire and distribute his wealth to ourselves?” Or “can we round up all the Japanese and put them in prison camps in case some percentage of them might be out to harm us?”

  18. I have been Mathiusized again………please check the wilderness.

  19. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    POS,

    Apple Inc., builds their phones using slave labor in China.

    In your vision of an anarchist state, is it your belief that the People of Kansas City, Iowa will (A) research and disseminate this information (B) not be manipulated by Apple (via ‘fake news’ and/or advertising) and (C) refuse to purchase iPhones?

    Please take this specific scenario and explain how / why you believe that The People will willingly forego purchasing this product?

    ———-

    DPM’s answer, to save time: see this.

    Note: Mathius, who is locked in a cell below-decks, believes that this is a dystonian hellscape far in excess of modern America.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      I hate it when you are right!

    • I don’t know or care.

      The point of anarchy/libertarianism is that all parties have a choice instead of a forced set of ‘options’. It’s worth whatever hardships that come with it.

      • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        The point of anarchy/libertarianism is that all parties have a choice instead of a forced set of ‘options’.

        I would not be the one to argue against that statement.

        But I did ask you a question which you ignored. The question is, generally, would you imagine that people would continue to buy unethically sourced goods. Specifically, the iPhone.

        More to the point, in your vision, if Apple in California can use slave labor in China to sell goods to POS in ::redacted::, then what stops Alibaba in China from using POS as slave labor (assuming they have sufficient force) to produce goods for sale in Shenzhen?

        More broadly, in order for an anarchist state to exist, there can be no statist-states AND everyone around the world will need to be aware of the entire production chain of everything they buy or else the evil externalities can be hidden behind ignorance or out-of-sight-out-of-mind. If that is the case, then a few bad actors would corrupt the entire system (including stealing whatever resourced they desired). So my question to you is – in YOUR vision – what stops this?

        It’s worth whatever hardships that come with it.

        Yes, of course… but the question is about those hardships. If we take it on its face that it’s worth it to move to an anarchist state, then the next logical question is “what’s that like?”

        So I’m trying to figure out how YOU envision the ararchist society fighting back against bad actors (in particular, here, sociopathic CEOs).

        I don’t know or care.

        Well you SHOULD care.

        The fundamental requirement for a functional anarchist state DEMANDS a moral people. A moral people care about not enslaving other people (as reciprocity implies that foreign people care about not enslaving you). It cannot be “I don’t care” or else your system implies that they, too, “do not care” about you, so their agents are free to steal, murder, and enslave where you live. This would require you to defend yourself and your territory from constant assault, but that’s not really a tenable solution. A small town cannot defend itself from Google Troops®. And it would be financially crippling to hire Amazon Defense Forces® for permanent security. Without a moral (and universal) attention to an ethical supply chain, anarchy is necessarily a permanent state of war-footing until someone gets an edge, then it becomes a totalitarian dictatorship or, at best, a modern version of the Trucking System.

        You cannot be so blind as to insist “X is better on principle” without giving some thought to how X shakes out. Because what if X is unstable?

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I have never bought an “Apple” product and I honestly don’t ever remember buying anything with the Nike logo on it.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    The pendulum never swings back all the way. It is always moving farther left with each swing. Because the center is constantly moving left. Now lets watch and cry as the R party races to do whatever is needed to win over more women so as to regain power. And how will they do this? By selling the ideas of Federal required family leave, and subsidized child care.

    Sorry ladies of SUFA, but I told you that giving women the right to vote was a root factor in this counties embrace of Socialism.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/11/gop-women-leadership-1055195

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      The pendulum never swings back all the way. It is always moving farther left with each swing. Because the center is constantly moving left.

      Only if you look at too shallow a timeline.

      One supposes the Romans might have felt the same way right before the Barbarians showed up and hit the big red RESET button.

      When the US collapses, the pendulum will swing all the way back to the right and then start ticking left again until the next big thing collapses.

      Now lets watch and cry as the R party races to do whatever is needed to win over more women so as to regain power.

      The R’s are little different from the D’s. The only significant difference is that the D’s are open about their statist tendencies while the R’s pretend to be freedom-lovers.

      And how will they do this? By selling the ideas of Federal required family leave, and subsidized child care.

      I have to admit. It would be amusing watching the D’s try to run away from something they love so much. Like watching the R’s run away from RomenyCare.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DPM

        The D’s have done it before and will do it again. They will use personality conflict or hidden motives of the R’s, anything but to agree. Unless they get more.

        Remember when Mr. Trump offered them citizenship for the dreamers? To make the DACA thing disappear? I think the D’s will oppose it in order to keep building their strength, in hopes of getting the whole enchilada down the road.

        For the record, RomneyCare was opposed by the guy who came up with the idea once he saw what the political compromising did to his idea. And, the R’s who opposed it were not the R’s who supported it. You forget that was the Tea Party election cycle.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DPM

        Did want to say that I agree with you on how things change. I used the pendulum because that is the metaphor so many relate to. Sorry Mrs. Mitchell.

        I think the evolution is not a line either. I think of it as a Circle. Things change gradually in one direction, becoming more oppressive with time. Then one day there is a sudden change and we are back at the beginning. It does not gradually shift back to the beginning. It simply ends and that usually is via some violent event.

  21. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/no-mueller-questions-in-supreme-court-case-that-could-affect-probe.html?recirc=taboolainternal

    How this case is decided shouldn’t have anything to do with how it will affect Presidential pardons. Don’t really understand why Presidents or governors have pardon powers, in the first place. Does anyone else know?

    I am confused why what a foreign court does would effect our ability to prosecute some one here. ???

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Pardon powers were granted to POTUS by the Constitution. Most State constitutions, if not all, followed suit. That is the simple but shallow answer.

      The real why probably lies in our English Law heritage, in that the King could grant pardons. This in turn was based on such powers existing in the old kingdoms and tribal regions dating back before Christ was a corporal.

      • Therein lies another proble…..Christ was never a Corporal…..now, moses was a mess cook….Christ was born a sgt.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          I guess you should know, since only you and SK were around back then……..bwahahahaha.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Christ was born a sgt.

          He was a carpenter.

          I like to imagine that one of his final thoughts was to be critical of the quality of woodworking on his crucifix.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Foreign courts:

      If SCOTUS changes the long standing rule allowing double prosecution for the same crime, their argument would be that a prosecution by one sovereign prevents another from prosecuting the same crime. While we are concerned with State vs. Federal sovereignty, it is not a far reach, given recent SCOTUS interpretations, to conclude this might be extended to prosecutions conducted under Foreign sovereigns.

      This all goes to the questions of what it means to be a Citizen of the USA in the modern world. Or what it should mean. Should our laws apply only to people and their actions within our borders? Or do we become but one spoke in the wheel of global governance?

      • Okay, gonna have to think about that for awhile. Sounds like they could simply state that double prosecution doesn’t apply to prosecutions done in other countries.

        Another question, which I think probably goes with the ” spoke in a wheel thing” . People keep talking about prosecuting Assange. On what charges? He’s not a citizen of the US. He has no expected loyalty to this country. So on what grounds can we prosecute him?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          The USA, and other countries, have the authority to prosecute people who violate their laws, regardless of their Citizenship or where they live. Assange is accused of stealing and releasing classified information, at worse, and private/govt information, at best. Thus the US can charge him with crimes and then under the international agreements with others, ask for him to be extradited to the USA. That is why he is where he is. Uruguay, or Paraguay, does not have an extradition agreement with the USA.

          Remember that DOJ recently indicted all those Russians?? We can accuse, indict all we want. But unless Russia extradites them, we will never prosecute. But they also cannot travel to countries with extradition agreements because the FBI or other national police, would arrest them and send them to the USA to stand trial.

          Note: The spokes I refer to is the idea that the USA should just be another administrative unit of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. The Globalists realize this is not possible right now so they try to put all govts. under a singular Court or legal authority. Such as the UN and World Court.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          Almost forgot. Yes, the Court could say it is limited to the USA. My point is that there has been a disturbing trend in the Courts, and among leftist legal beagles, that international law and foreign court rulings should carry weight in US courts. To the extent of even overriding US law.

          So what seems like an easy slam dunk solution, might just wind up being something awful.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        JAC….isnt it kind of done all the time. Take the Rodney King beating he received at the hands of the LAPS. Aquited in the State courts. The Feds didn’t like the results and charged them with a twist. They violated his civil rights. Same beating.

        • I watched part of the SC discussion on this case on tv. They seemed to be arguing that the federal needed to be able to prosecute twice based on their not agreeing with the state’s outcome. They kept talking about civil rights.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            The Feds did it to the VA governor prior to McAuliffe. The guy violated NO State crime. He was doing his gubernatorial duty. However, even though he had committed no crime, even at a federal level, just the possibility a crime could be committed in the future. Got a conviction, destroyed his political career, verdict tossed by the Scotus.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Man… I remember the Rodney King riots… hooo boy!

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Just think of the riots that would have of Cured if OJ had been convicted on the criminal charges of murder. That’s why they had that incompetent inexperienced prosecuter go against an Grade A defense team.

            Lest we forget ALL the race riots in LA were while the Democrats held unyielding power

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Colonel

    Still waiting for your reply to my question regarding your question. lol

    December 7, 2018 at 10:38 pm (Edit)
    I have a question for JAC and Mathius……..why don’t each of you see the reality of things?

    To see what is actually happening without conjecture?

    Reply
    Just A Citizen says:
    December 8, 2018 at 3:48 am (Edit)
    Colonel

    I can’t answer your question without knowing what it is you are referring to. I think I see reality pretty clearly.

    Reply

    • Oh…..did not see your other reply……just this one…..ok will answer……..after lunch……It is pork chop day, mashed taters, pintos, cucmber salad and diet coke day…..great little country diner…..uses real lard to cook in. BRB

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Just finished smoking a slab of pork belly. Cured 5 days, air dried 1. Can’t wait for breakfast

        Used bourbon soaked oak

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          I’m on my way.. is there a navigable waterway near you by any chance?

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            It’s polluted. Just might take the copper off the bottom of your vessel. Or eat the wood. It’ll kill the toredos deader than a door nail.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              It probably will be better than the salt beef that you’ve been eating. Laying in the barrel for years. 1800th century version of MRE’s

  23. Referencing D13’s claim that we can’t really opt out of technology.

    Alexia is on my tablet, I don’t want to use Alexia, so I have never turned it on. But at some point, everyday, Alexia shows up on my pull down display. So she’s doing something, even turned off. I have no idea what!

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    I give you Mathius’ Right Wing counterpart, his alter ego, his doppelganger.

    A person who drinks way to much Red Bull……….

    https://www.redstate.com/bradslager/2018/12/11/kamala-harris-proposes-dream-america-opposes-democratic-standards/

    I find the nitpicking of the statement very similar to Mathius’ nitpicking of the phrase, “I wish we could return to the good ol’ days”.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Mathius, while dumb as a brick, is still many times smarter and more eloquent than the author of that article.

      … though Mathius does need to tone down his excess comma usage.

      ——–

      Also, not for nothing, there’s a big difference between “we should be more like this fictitious society” and “we should go back to a thing that never was.” Not that Kamala Harris is right (she, like Mathius, is dumb as a bag of hair), but she is just reposting what someone else wrote suggesting that investing in the fairer sex is a good idea (Wakanda being notably egalitarian despite it’s authoritarian tendencies). When Mathius (who, again, has bats in his belfry) argues with people advocating for a return to the “good old days,” he do so from a position that the other party is arguing a fantasy as though it were real whereas Kamala (within whose skull the hamster wheel is continues to spin even though the hamster died long ago) is simply repeating an an appeal to an upside within an established fantasy.

      The difference is like saying “it would be nice if we could build a space elevator” versus “we should go back to using space elevators like we did in the good old days.” In the former is the recognition that this is a hypothetical and inherently speculative. In the later is the pretense that a thing that never was, actually was, and that the primary speculative aspect should be treated as fact.

      Mathius, whose lights are on despite no one being home, finds it objectionable when people appeal to a rosy past that never existed, cherry picking the good, ignoring the bad, and then having to argue against claims based on this fantasy with people who insist on treating it as fact.

      This is not a small difference.

      But he’s still an idiot.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Sorry Pirate………..but it is as I said. BOTH are unnecessarily NIT PICKING.

        BOTH have consumed far to much Red Bull and apparently have to much time on their hands.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Do you not find it specious when people appeal to rose-colored visions of The Good Old Days as support for their arguments?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            Depends on what their underlying point is. Most of the time here it is about things that should be viewed as good and desirable today. Like when kids could roam without fear, when we had greater freedom than we do today.

      • Special note, me bucko. Fer some unknown reason, I lost th’ spare key t’ Mathius’ shackles. Should it be deemed necessary t’ let ‘im run free, ( aft all ’tis th’ silly season )…might I suggest stretchin’ th’ bond chains across th’ muzzle o’ yer niner? I be sure one simple shot would release ‘im from those chains.

  25. JAC…..I was reading the commentary between the two of you and the tranlsations of things that should be…………It appeared that neither of you were being realistic. ( I have forgotten the exact phrase but I will go back and re-read )…..

    But the one reference to Mathius and his understanding of open borders….where he thinks that these are just innocent people trying to make a better living…wanting to come to the United States. There is no universal law at play, there are no universal rights at play, and there are no “natural laws” at play….There is nothing except the reality that there is a border and there are “man made” laws that, unfortunately, pre-empt universal laws, natural laws, natural rights or whatever….it simply ain’t so.

    The reality of the situation is that……….we have a border. End of sentence. We have laws about immigration…..end of sentence. Crossing the border illegally violates the law…..end of sentence. There is NO moral obligation or ethical obligation to allow violation of law no matter how dire the circumstance.

    I know that Mathius, (who is locked in the hold of the Hammer for now), wants open borders. Lines on paper are real. I do not care who drew them but they are accepted and no amount of anarchy is going to over turn it. Magic men in magic uniforms carrying not so magic arms are real and they have a purpose.

    BOth of you are smart people….maybe too smart. There are no innocents on the border. None. Women and children breaking the law are not innocents. They are law breakers and they are criminals….end of sentence. To Mathius….even a newborn being carried in the arms sucking on the teat….IS NOT INNOCENT. This is how we have to look at it. When you enforce the law…..it is unforgiving and should be.

    But the one fallacy that really gets the dander up on this old bald head of mine…..the percentage of people that are in these caravans right now….are not innocents. The media, both left and right, sanitize their pictures and reporting. I do not understand it because the threat is very real. No women and children were gassed…..for example. They were not the ones who rushed the border…but superimposed pictures get taken as gospel and it really pisses me off. The border is dangerous…..very dangerous….things jump out at you at night down here. Undesireables that are trying to cross are in the majority and in the majority of 90 percent or greater. Most are armed.

    The real immigrants are lined up at the proper crossing points and are being let into the country within 72 hours…….THIS IS THE REALITY.

    So, no amount of natural law, universal law or universal rights are even in the mix. And no amount of anarchist are going to change it. Not now……not ever.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      I challenge you or anyone to explain how man can violate any NATURAL LAW. I maintain that so such thing is possible.

      If the LAWS OF NATURE cannot be violated by man, but the rights of man can be violated by other men, then our Rights are not part of Natural Law.

      To counter this, Locke and those since devised a clever explanation. Our Rights still exist, we just are not free to exercise them. We always have them.

      I doubt the starving bloke in N. Korea would think such an argument as any kind of blessing.

      • Challenge accepted, sir. Give me an example of Natural Law today that is not checked or protected by man made law….

        What good is an existing “natural right” if man made law makes it not relevant or even relevant…… It is bunk to say….”I have a natural right to freedom of speech and then be sued or put in jail for libel.”

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Colonel

          Sorry Sir, but I challenged you first. Can you come up with a Natural Law that is being violated?

          • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            Per Mr. Aquinas, I believe, the only Natural Law is “Good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.”

            I’d say we’ve violated that one quite a bit.

          • Sorry Sir, but I challenged you first. Can you come up with a Natural Law that is being violated? All of them?

            Yes, you did throw the gaunlet first….”Natural law, in philosophy, a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law.”

            Ok, this is supposedly the best definition there is of natural law or…

            “While it may certainly be posited that common law and positive law have much of their fundamentals based in ‘natural law,’ it must be noted that so-called ‘natural law’ is not ‘law’ at all, but is simply an ethical, moral, or religious code by which civilization chooses to rule its collective organized life. Natural law can not be relied upon as either a reason, justification, or a legal defense, in support of ones actions.”

            So lets go with one of the fundamental issues of natural law…..

            “Natural laws are the laws which are absolute and inalienable. These are the rights which every individual has by the virtue of being a human being. Natural laws transcend geographical and political boundaries. They would still exist even if no government existed.”

            So, I am trying to find a natural law that, by virtue of being a human being, is not being violated……let’s see….according to several noted PHILOSOPHERS…..all men are created equal…..well, this has been violated from day one.

            Others have noted examples of natural Law……

            (1)common access to air, running water, sea, and seashore. Well, we know this to be crap on a stick

            (2)duty of parents to provide support for their minor children. Oooops…we know this to be a bunch of hooey as well

            (3)equality of treatment. nope

            (4)sanctity of human life. This is laughable at best

            I cannot come up with a Natural Law that is not being violated…..can you?

            • My whole point being…..if there is natural law……why does it take positive law to enforce it? And if positive law is needed…..then why have a belief in natural law?

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                My whole point being…..if there is natural law……why does it take positive law to enforce it?

                Because humans are shit.

                And if positive law is needed…..then why have a belief in natural law?

                Because natural law is independent of the fact that humans are shit.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Colonel

      P.S. The lines on the map are as real as the ink used to draw them and the paper which holds them. Those lines located on the ground are ONLY as real as the resolve of those who defend them.

      I agree they are real. But like promises made by politicians, they mean nothing if they are not kept and honored.

      • Then, they are kept and honored by force……where is your natural law now?

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I have to run so I don’t have time to read all the posts further on. An obvious anti-Trump “Friend” just posted on FB a cartoon. Showing Trump running into a wall labeled Pelosi “splat” if that was then outcome of the meeting he had with her and Schumer, it really shows they have no intention to compromise in anyway, which Trump did last year and they said no. It shows they have no intention of “Defending” our nation’s borders and allowing the dilution of our countries traditions and laws with mostly people who don’t give a care about them from the day they crashed the gates and didn’t follow the legal methods and procedures.

        Rome did the same thing and only hastened the fall of the western empire.

        Both parties are guilty. Trump really belongs to neither and both the R’s and D’s are trying desperately to get him out or not run a 2nd term

  26. T’ th’ captian o’ th’ Hammer…..keep an eye out. That schooner behind ye be loaded wit’ Red Bull. Take care.

  27. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Gman,

    I almost never visit SUFA from my phone (too hard to type out my long-winded responses, but I did try yesterday. I have to say that it was completely unusable. I couldn’t load the page without get redirected to some spammy site or another. I have no objections to ads because, well, it’s my way of paying for the glorious gift of SUFA.. but that’s just ridiculous.

    Just thought I’d share.

    • I have never had that problem with phone or tablet. You may want to ask your service provider. Or, it’s Google. I have no control over ads anywhere.

    • The only internet I use my phone for is for the maps while driving. Or maybe check in with Google to find a phone number. Sites just seem to hard to navigate on a phone. Plus, that keeps my face out of the phone in public. That’s really starting to annoy me, everyone with their face in the phone. On a lighter note, re: maps…NSFW

  28. California may be taxing….text massages soon. This includes going back 5 years to collect. Why? To fund phone service for the poor. That’s one way to get cell phones from kids.

    South Africa may be changing it’s Constitution so they can take land from white farmers without compensation. Zimbabwa did the same thing, now they have a hunger problem.

    Trump, Shumer and Pelosi had an interesting chat. It was in 2007 that Shumer was saying the same thing as Trump about border security. So here we sit, if Congress sends a spending bill to Trump, and he vetos it, it’s the Trump shutdown. If nothing comes to his desk, Shumer is back on the hook, no matter what was said (Trump played him like a fiddle). After all, can’t blame Trump if he has nothing to sign. Shumer is backed into a corner, this should be fun.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      This has been studied ad naseam.

      IF you account for time taken off for child rearing
      AND you account for self-selection in career paths
      THEN the wage gap virtually disappears (usually 0.97:1-ish.. or within the margin of error).

      Something interesting to ponder though is that self-selection in career paths. WHY do so few women work as engineers or programmers or accountants or portfolio managers?

      Though I, of course, have no formal education, having been taught by the sea, Mathius attended a prestigious 4 year school, and he noted that very few women seemed to be enrolled in the STEM courses, but an awful lot seemed to be majoring in things like history (import, to be sure, but not particularly lucrative) and English, and art, etc. Whereas his school was well known for its engineering program, yet he only knew one girl (absolutely brilliant… and hot) pursuing an engineering degree.

      The Dread Pirate speculates that women in general have opted to shoot themselves in the economic foot and then complain.. the complaining makes sense.. people love to complain.. but he wonders WHY they shoot themselves in the foot in the first place.

      There is a category of jobs which gets little discussion in this debate. We all know “white collar” and “blue collar,” but there is also “pink collar.”

      Pink Collar jobs are jobs dominated by women: teachers, masseuses, nannies, nurses, and secretaries. And you’ll note that these are all (generally) low-paying jobs.

      What, do you suppose, drives this?

      • And you’ll note that these are all (generally) low-paying jobs.

        If the cheap bastards who have nannie’s would just pay more, they would be off the list 😀

      • I’ll have you know that my wife was a math teacher and my daughter is a chip designer at Apple. My oldest son is an electronics engineer designing and programming circuit boards and my youngest is software engineer. STEM is in our blood.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Try this…..Very few men grow up aspiring to be mothers. What you are doing is ignoring the biological imperative. Now some women choose to ignore it, others do not. I’m sure in your circle of acquaintances you have met many women who have said that if they could afford it they would stay home and raise the kids for X years. Those X years will cost them dearly in the long run and skew statistics if they are not treated as a variable.

        I’ve met women from my generation and the generations that follow who have expressed this thought.

        Statistics even show that gay men, unencumbered with children fare better than their straight male counterparts who are fettered with urchins.

        Yes and I have met house husbands who love the role. Many have made big bucks, marry a bit later and have the luxury of staying home with the kiddies. Other love it because they are inveterate “tinkerers” who probably could not hold down a steady job because of their personalities.

  29. Ahoy! T’ th’ Captain o’ th’ Hammer……a request, sir. Could ye unleash th’ gag on Mathius long enough fer ‘im t’ answer a riddle fer me.

    I would like t’ know how much he, ‘n his ilk, rely on doubloon averagin’ in his business….specifically, retail doubloon averagin’ t’ make recommendations on thar stocks/bonds.

    Thank ye, Captain. A whole bevy o’ new wenches awaits yer return t’ Laguna Madre.

    • I always love when they give you super narrow quotation marks. No full text, just the one offensive word and then supply their own context. Sooooo… let’s see if we can’t fish it out, shall we?

      Here it is: “He absolutely owes her an apology, and his refusal to do so isn’t a sign of strength – it’s cowardice. ”

      Sooo… let’s start with the fact that she did not call him a coward. She said refusing to issue an apology is cowardice. Splitting hairs? Perhaps, but a distinction worth noting.

      A brave person, a good person, a person who has served with distinction may have a moment of cowardice, but that does not necessarily make him a coward.

      And, for what it’s worth, she’s not wrong. He DOES owe an apology, and it IS cowardly to refuse to apologize. But I don’t want to litigate that here.

      THAT SAID, I would have suggested she pick better words.

      THAT SAID, I would like to know where your outrage for this kind of thing was when, oh, I don’t know.. Trump told McCain: ‘I like people who weren’t captured’.

      Or, if you’d like a more recent example, this fun little tête-à-tête:

      WALLACE: Bill McRaven, Retired Admiral, Navy Seal, 37 years, former head of U.S. Special Operations —

      TRUMP: Hillary Clinton fan.

      WALLACE: Special Operation —

      TRUMP: Excuse me, Hillary Clinton fan.

      WALLACE: Who led the operations, commanded the operations that took down Saddam Hussein and that killed Osama bin Laden, says that your sentiment is the greatest threat to democracy in his life.

      TRUMP: OK, he’s a Hilary Clinton backer and an Obama backer and frankly —

      WALLACE: He’s a Navy SEAL —

      TRUMP: Would it have been nicer if we got Osama Bin Laden a lot sooner than that, wouldn’t it been nice? Living — think of this, living in Pakistan, beautifully in Pakistan and what I guess in what they considered a nice mansion, I don’t know, I’ve seen nicer.

      But living in Pakistan right next to the military academy, everybody in Pakistan knew he was there. And we give Pakistan $1.3 billion and year and they don’t tell him, they don’t tell him —

      —-

      So Cortez says that it’s cowardice to refuse to apologize, and you’re cool with reposting an article which makes it sound like she’s impugning his whole personality and service rather than describing a specific act.

      But Trump tells a war hero and former POW who has served in the senate for decade that he “likes people who weren’t captured,” as if having been captured is some stigma of deep personal failure McCain had to carry for the rest of his life which negated the value of his military service and made him less qualified for the Presidency? To that, you have nothing to say. Should I search the archives? Oh wait, I just did. Not a PEEP on the post for that day or the next.

      And when McRaven, a man who has served Presidents of both parties, and took down Osama bin Laden, has anything negative to say about Trump, Trump throws him in the trash heap, dismissively calling him a Hillary supporter (which, he was not, by the way – he didn’t vote in ’16). and then goes on to imply that we would have gotten Osama sooner if McRaven were better at his job. And to this, you have nothing to say? I posted about that the other day when it happened and I believe that no one responded.

      You can’t POSSIBLY have missed Trump’s comment toward McCain, and I find it hard to believe you missed his comments on McRaven, either. But those evidently don’t get a rise out of you. But god forbid the socialist criticize someone in the military, and you clutch your pearls.

      ::muffled noises and Mathius is dragged back into his cell::

      • Trump has said some really dumb things. I like his policy ideology and he’s not HRC, so I just cringe and move on 🙂

        The article didn’t just cover that one issue, which is why I posted the link. As far as what was said by AOC, it’s just an example of the typical arrogance of the Left, do X or your X. Kind of like when we were 7 and your friends egged you on to do something dumb and if you didn’t you were a wimp. Pretty much sums up her mentality.

        If I remember, the “All hat and no cattle” Democrat doesn’t deserve an apology. One should never apologize for telling the truth, no matter how bad ones feeling get hurt. It seems that she has taken herself from the spotlight, wisely so.

        • Oh, on a lighter note, since women wanted to be treated as equals, then we should do so. If Liberal politicians can’t take the heat, get out of Congress and go back to the kitchen. I actually prefer the kitchen, hence I’m not a politician 😉

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          All in all for all the visceral hatred spewed at Trump, I rarely have heard from liberals why they think HRC would have been better, especially with her track record on just about everything.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        1. She called him a coward. That is a general accusation of character. Not an attack on a single event.

        2. Not apologizing is NOT COWARDLY. Where you lefties get these ideas is beyond me. Must be from the book of left wing moral condemnation. Pull one out whenever and throw it at what ever. No matter is is bogus, just keep repeating it. Which brings me to:

        3. Your Sean Hannity routine once again. By the way, just about everyone at SUFA did express anger and frustration with Trump’s attack on McCain. Except myself and I think one other. So maybe you should do better research when looking into the archives.

        4. I thought this issue with Kelly was resolved months ago. Why is Cortez and another hack raising it again now?

        5. Calling Kelly a coward for not apologizing is not the same kind of insult as those expressed by Trump towards others. His insults always carry a grain of truth. Just enough to make the insult sting but not enough to stop the Harpies from harping. Sorry Sir, but FALSE EQUIVALENCY. Unless you are simply trying to point out that both Cortez and Trump show little class.

  30. The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    Thought for the day: In every Christmas movie I have ever seen where Santa flies off from a house after delivering presents, he takes off into the sky and heads out of town. It’s very dramatic and all…

    But wouldn’t it make more sense for him to just head to the next house?

    • It just happened to be the last house in that town, Silly. 😀

      • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        Every time?

        Shouldn’t he start at one end of town and end at the other?

        Just once, I want to see him dramatically saddle up, give the reins a firm shake, Vixen whinnies, he takes off into the air….. and then lands 20 feet away.

        • Who the hell lives only 20 ft apart that has a house? But it would be great to see him buckle up, get the sleigh ready, give the reins a jerk……ON DANCER……..and then jump to the next house….but here is the real question….if all he has to do is put a finger beside his nose and poof……………why all the “fall-de-rah” with the Reindeer and sleigh? Inquiring minds want to know.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          DPM

          Tim Allen’s Santa Claus. He takes off, swooshes into the sky, does a U turn and lands on the house across the street.

          You need to expand your library.

  31. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Dread Pirate Mathius you might try bringing the Hammer up the Pamlico and Bath Creek. Oldest town in NC and Blackbeard your ancestor called it home when not plundering the high seas.

    You may not like the chill in the air after Barbados

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    This is ACTUALLY damaging to Mr. Trump. Far more than the Cohen revelations, in my opinion. IF, I repeat IF, the media company actually made the statements as presented by the prosecutors someone is going to be in a hell of a fix. That being whoever supposedly “coordinated” with the media company.

    But if ever there was proof of prosecutors using their power to deliberately undo a President this is it. You see the biggest crime in this was making the payment. Yes both sides violate the campaign laws by coordinating. But it is the payment itself which forms the crime. YET, they decided not to prosecute the company making the payment.

    Now try to remember back when I said this was all going to come down to two possible things. The campaign and Mr. Trump’s business dealings before he ran. It now looks like they are using both options at the moment.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/prosecutors-media-company-admitted-it-paid-off-playboy-model-to-protect-trump-before-election/

    • Read the John Edwards case and see if you have the same conclusions afterwards.

      • My point, is that the Federal Elections Commission found no violation of campaign ethics by Edwards in paying hush money as long as the hush money was not campaign funds. There is no violation of Federal law to pay hush money to shut someone up. The violation of law actually comes in the extortion end, which any demand of payment to be quiet, is extortion by definition.

        To be clear…..I am not taking sides. I want to see equal justice no matter the person. I am curious as to the violation of law.

        Anything a President does or a future POTUS does will directly affect elections. Just getting a haircut to improve looks is a form of affecting elections…..changing a style of dress to appear more Presidential….so, I scratch my head here. (And that is serious for someone with no hair).

        • Now, there is an interesting legal review by the Harvard Law Review that says proving a campaign violation in paying hush money will be difficult at best. I read the whole review and highlight the following…….. the payment to Daniels was not a “legal fee” nor was it a campaign fee—it was an effort to deal with bad publicity on the cusp of an election. The D.C. Circuit acknowledged that the “allegations standard” is not the approach the FEC applies for campaign expenditures arising from a candidate’s desire to counter negative publicity. In such scenarios, when we’re asking whether campaign funds are being used “to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign,” we’re really asking something more like, “Absent the campaign, would the candidate have incurred the expense?” For example, in 2001, former Senator Bob Kerrey had left political life for academia when the New York Times and 60 Minutes reported his possible involvement in a massacre of civilians during the Vietnam War. He retained a PR firm and sought an Opinion Letter from the FEC on whether he could pay a $59,554.48 invoice using leftover campaign funds from his time in the U.S. Senate. His argument, in sum, was that the bad publicity “would never have arisen if it were not for the fact that he was a Federal candidate and Federal officeholder.” The FEC agreed, advising that such an expenditure would not constitute “conversion” because “the recent publicity would not have occurred if Mr. Kerrey had not been a prominent Senator and prominent Federal candidate.” In other words, but-for his high-profile candidacy and office-holding, the alleged misbehavior would never have come to light; thus, the publicity expenses did not exist “irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign” and campaign funds could be used.

          To go on….Similarly, in connection with a 2010 U.S. Senate race, the FEC issued an Opinion Letter advising that campaign funds could be used to support a federal candidate’s litigation against a newspaper to keep his old public employment records sealed. Similarly, in connection with a 2010 U.S. Senate race, the FEC issued an Opinion Letter advising that campaign funds could be used to support a federal candidate’s litigation against a newspaper to keep his old public employment records sealed. Even though the embarrassing records pre-dated the campaign, the FEC advised that campaign funds could be used in Miller’s efforts to prevent their disclosure. The use of campaign funds was appropriate there “because the lawsuit would not have existed irrespective of [the candidate’s] campaign.”

          And finally…. the government and even the House of Representatives would have a difficult time in proving illegal contributions in light of the newly disclosed revelation of a “government” slush fund, using tax money to protect sitting House and Senate members

          Intersting thoughts,,,,,,,

          • Liberals have been grasping at straws since HRC was sent to the political scrap heap in 2016. Despite all of the negative coverage, Trump’s satisfaction rating is the same as Obama’s was during this same period of time during his Presidency. This won’t bode well down the road for the Crats. Frankly, I think a lot of people are fed up with all the witch hunt BS. These idiots are elected to run the country, not fight for their own political power. As has been the norm, just when they think they have Trump sunk, they end up disappointed. This will be the case here as well.

            But, this weekend has some importance to Texans:

            The Cowboys will clinch the NFC East with a win on Sunday, and although I’m not picking them, I am giving you a heads up so you can avoid all Cowboys fans for at least 24 hours after the clinching. As everyone knows, there’s nothing Cowboys fans like to talk about more than how amazing the Cowboys are. If you have a lot of friends who happen to be Cowboys fans, you might want to turn off your phone and quit all social media. 😀

            • Gman,,,,,,,I am not jumping on the liberal bad wagon bashing here,,,,,,I am beginning to believe in a much more troublesome issue than a few liberals. I firmly believe that there is a true “Deep State” in Wsahington……and it is not just liberals. What is bothering me more, is that there appears to be such a corruption level in Washington, they (libs and conservs) will do anything to protect their hive. The trashing of the US Consitution is a much more important issue with me and that is what is happening.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                Yep, el Presidente has really flushed out the rats. Don’t think any of us had any idea just how bad (or deep) it actually was. As the old expression went, this is going to be one tough row to hoe.

                Question really is how badly dumbed down the American populace is. Watched a frightening video the other day done by the child of a Holocaust survivor on Temple University’s campus. Man, they do NOT KNOW SHIT. Betcha didn’t know we were on the German side against the Russians in WW 2 which happened two hundred years ago where maybe 100,000 Jews perished which was every bit as bad as the slavery which continued in the United States till 1945.

              • The “Deep State” narrative is BS, an obfuscation, a distraction from the deeper underlying truth. If truth is an onion, the deep state is in the layer just beneath the skin.

              • Yes, that sums it up fairly well. We have a huge problem with politics in general, way, way too much corruption and abuse of power.

            • Now, the Dallas Cowboy fans……..we are not even in the same league as the Philadelphia Eagles fans or Washington Redskin fans….

              Beating Indianapolis on their home turf will be a tough to do. Mainly because I do not know which Dak Prescott will show up to play……

              I am both a Cowboy and Texan fan….well, because they are Texas teams. I am not a Jerry Jones fan at all but I do admire his business acumen.

              HOWEVER……you want to see some bragging……..just wait until the Texans and the Cowboys end up in a Super Bowl one day…….it is possible.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Colonel

        The John Edwards defense is more akin to what Cohen did. The story I posted was about the publishing company actually paying the extortion money.

        And, this is very important, they admitted they did it knowing they violated the law and that is was done in coordination with the Trump campaign. The campaign should have known that was a violation. In the end the actual violation may be that they never reported the payment as a political contribution.

        Now here is where the Deep State corruption comes in. There have been many such cased in the past. They have all been resolved with “fines” paid to the FEC. NOT JAIL.

        And especially not with some jackass attorney standing in front of microphones and cameras yelling “Mr. Trump is next”.

        • I understand where you are coming from…in any event, it does not change anything,,,,EXCEPT…with the issue if they knowingly violated the law. Trump still has plausible denial…….UNLESS they have Trump on tape saying to do this. The payment still does not pass the contribution test, however. Not according to how I interpret it.

          The publishing company paid the hush money. IF the hush money was paid to shut her up…there is no violation. So…I stay confused. Also, if hush money was paid to shut her up to protect his family, business….etc……it is still not a campaign contribution violation,,,,,even if the residual helps his Presidency.

          What I do not understand is why is there not an extortion charge……even more so, if this bimbo violated the agreement, why is this not an issue. Non disclosure agreements are binding…..

          At any rate, campaign finance laws are broken with consistency….and people pay fines. Obama’s cover up was worse than this and all he paid was $300,000. Clinton never paid anything and she stinks worse than Obama.

          As far as Avenetti is concerned, he is nothing more than an ambulance chasing shit head. He lost his case against Trump and his feelings are hurt. He has been dressed down by a porno star and his feelings are hurt.

          Cohen has been convicted of perjury…..he is a known and convicted liar who will do anything, at this time, to save his hide. I do not think that anyone is going to believe him at all.

          • In a Russia probe of election fraud or interference…….the only thing they have uncovered is a payment or payments to females to keep their traps shut and trying to link this to campaign contribution violations by not reporting this? This is all they have? A media source, who is a personal friend of Trump, pays off a porno star through his company, to shut up…..if this is it…then they do not have much.

            First off, the fact that Trump jumped in the proverbial rack with some models is old news and who cares. If we had to lock up all the politicians that have paid hush money or jumped in the rack with someone other than their wives,,,,,,we would not have a Congress…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..wait a minute….let me think this through.

          • I do not think that anyone is going to believe him at all.

            Haha, Adam Schiff will, and the Liberal media will. Many more Leftist’s will as well. I doubt a jury or judge will, which is more important.

        • Doesn’t congress have a “slush fund” to pay off women accusing congressmen of sexual harassment? Why is that ok, but paying off porn stars to keep quiet is not?

          • No difference at all, except the Liberal media is ignoring the “slush fund” issue, ignoring Clinton paying off Paula Jones, etc, etc. In the end, it goes nowhere. The Liberal media are so biased they shouldn’t even qualify for media.

    • https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/12/coven-trump-campaign-finance-spakovsky/

      Considering the Edwards case, this is probably a dead issue, but, the Crats and Liberal media will keep it alive. They should be reminded that the Obama campaign was fined over 300K for campaign finance violations, but I expect crickets about this from them.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        But also remain silent on the HRC campaign violations. Causing 1) Debbie Wasserman-Schulzes resignation and Donna Brazil’s revelations

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          The democrats are far better at bare knuckle no holds barred political warfare. The R’s kinda think there are rules.

          They definitely treat their behavior like the way HRC testified to Congress about Benghazi. That’s history what’s it matter now.

          • Yes….the Republicans remind me of the British wearing red uniforms marching in lines in an open field……

            The Democrats hiding behind hay bales, bushes, and ditches firing into the open lines of Red uniformed enemies.

            The Republicans saying that “this is not the gentlemanly way to fight a war”…..the Democrats, while re-loading, saying tough shit, dig deeper, and fire again.

            There are no Marcus of Queensbury rules in politics.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            The Republicans still think FDR is President and still react as if it is 1932. They have NO FRIGGING CLUE how to lead or govern. When Gingrich did, they ran him out of town.

            You guys are from all over. Our NY Governor, Damien VI, has actually said, “There is nothing great about America….and never was”. Now you tell me how a high school freshman could have lost an election against him if they had merely run him on their commercials saying that with the voice over, “If you believe that, vote for him, if you don’t vote for me”. They NEVER even brought it up.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Don’t know and don’t care what the issue is. Just have to RESPECT the guy for his effort to let them know what he thinks of them.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4755110/giant-middle-finger-sculpture/

    P.S.: We had a recent dust up in our little town over the City Council approving some plans for a subdivision. A recall petition has been registered with enough signatures to force a Recall Election in January. EVERY member of the council and the mayor is on the recall ballot. If all are booted it might be that the Governor will have to appoint a new council to act on city business until the next full election, next fall. All of this turmoil in a town of about 2000 people.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      We had a similar issue in the town where I lived in VT. It also included the corrupt police department. As one of the Rebels it got so bad my wife and I were offered FBI protection.

      Two parts, the council seemed to be made up from developers and real estate businesses. It was one big merry go round. Pass new zoning, quit, go build, then the relators quit and sold those properties. Has anyone ever seen a permit be given in less than 24 hours at the State level approving running a 3 foot diameter water main over 200 feet long across a State iron bridge that was built in the 1800’s. And also draw down the village water system below safety margins. The village an town were separate entities.

      The police were heavily involved in the drug trade protection racket.

  34. DPM……….for Mathius. The idea behind dollar-cost averaging is to cut down in any investment risks by investing the same dollar amount in the same investment over a period of time. By spacing out an investment over time and dividing the amount of money invested equally, an investor adopting the DCA approach aims to avoid buying shares of a stock or a commodity when the price of that security is high. Over time, some purchases will end up being for a higher per-share cost, and some will end up being lower.

    My question…..do you, in your business, accept this particular method?

  35. You know how braggadocios us Texicans are………I wonder if any other state can find their state flag embedded in “Old Glory”?

    Go to the blue field with the stars……third row of stars……last star on the right. Draw a rectangle into the stripes of Old Glory……with the star in the Center left portion of the rectangle…..Voila.

  36. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/12/13/mexico-closing-border-guatemala/

    Thank you Trump, it was about time for Mexico to learn. If you allow all these people in Your Country, it’s not gonna just be America’s problem. It’s gonna be your problem, too.

    • Interesting how this works, isn’t it. The media is not showing it over here because it is not to their liking but the following countries, in the last 18 months have built walls……Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, Sri Lanka, and Greece. Israel has added more walls.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      They got almost half the country inflamed with cries of Russia and Impeachment.

      This is how they change the narrative now that they have nothing of substance regarding Russian collusion.

      If you noticed, it started changing just before the election. With the exception of the usual loud mouths, the media coverage and some key political figures started discussing Campaign finance violations and business dealings prior to the election. Now it is Middle East influence.

      Wonder if Mueller will dive head first into ISRAELI influence in American elections??? Don’t hold your breath.

  37. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I did recently create a Facebook account, OMG. With my 50th school reunion activities that was the only way to connect with my California classmates.

    Finding very interesting postings among them. Most had long since left LA and live outside. They tend to be very conservative. Those still inside uber liberal with some exceptions. With those I just ignore any political discussion. It’s wasted time, because at no time can they or have justified their opinion backing up their comments. They just spew vicseous name calling. Totally opposite of our friend and college Mathius who does argue his opinion but also has his ever present alter ego DPM.

    This morning I read the posting of a friend of a friend. She started out by saying now that she’s retired she can speak out without fear of retribution. Didn’t say where she worked but could be the government where you do have to be careful, but could have worked for Facebook, Twitter, Google etc.

    I was sort of split on two posts as to her true opinions but here goes #1 “McCain did the right thing” no explanation no comments. I can only think is that he did the right thing by dying. #2 was an open question. Why didn’t Trump and Ivanka while they were making their fortune “Make America Great Again” by not investing more in America. My and were would be. They are a private company and they could invest anywhere they follow where the climate is best for their business. Besides they had built resorts hugely in America plus buying and building globally. Then he could not make rules and regulations Making investing in America a good deal. Now he can influence or via EO’s directly not be the victim of others.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Wow that’s dumb. So, if I build a resort in the US but cannot use US electronics, sheetrock or steel because those industries were offshored it’s ok? It amazes me to this day that people cannot look at the whole, the gestalt as the Germans would say to see how interrelated everything is.

      Back as a psych major in the late ’60’s I was totally confused by the different schools until I ran into the “gestalt” school and saw how everything is a little bit of this, a little bit of that.

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Here, here. Can I get a Second to the motion?

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/12/13/donald-trump-executive-power-president-war-democracy-constitution-cult-column/2065368002/

    While the primary point is good, I don’t like how they used Trump’s name to get clicks on this article. I expect many in the TDS crowd will think this was about Trump only.

  39. Some border intel for SUFA. I do not know if it has reached the news yet but if it has not…here it is.

    Mexico is closing their border with Guatemala. Mexico’s top security official says the government will effectively close off illegal entry at its southern border with Guatemala.
    Interior Secretary Olga Sanchez Cordero says Mexico will end the practice of undocumented or illegal crossings over the Suchiate River, which marks much of the border between the two countries. Sanchez Cordero said Wednesday that “in the south there will be only one entry, on the bridge.”
    She adds that “anyone who wants to enter illegally, we are going to say: ‘Get in line and you can enter our country.’”

    Hmmm….get in line and you can enter our country. I wonder where that came from? Don’t tell me that Trump is not having effect on Mexico. Hmmm..perhaps this is part of the wall that Mexico pays for? First, NAFTA and now Mexico getting tough on immigrants on their southern border. Trump follows through on closing off the US border….it creates chaos in Mexico…Mexico says we don’t want them here….we need to stop it at our southern border.

    Jus’ sayin’

    • As a Colonel, you already know that the best, most efficient means of resolving problems is with ordinance of some kind. The bigger the problem, the bigger the ordinance. Call it freedom or defense or something, whatever the serfs will agree to, and it’s all good. No more problems, just scorched politically neutral wasteland.

      The world has a lot of problems. The biggest one is statism, which is supported by billions and covers most of the planet. Therefore it needs to be addressed with a global thermonuclear exchange, and incendiary follow up, Dresden style. Whatever is left gets burned.

      I estimate that if you could kill 6 or more billion people with a nuclear exchange, you could effectively neutralize the statism problem for at least a thousand years before humanity screws it up again.

      I would start with the USA and Israel, Canada, Rome and Saudi Arabia, then the rest of Europe and the middle east, China and Russia, India and then rest of Asia and Australia. Mexico and most of South America is way down on the list somewhere.

      Don’t bother with third world or developing nations. They aren’t really the problem and would probably die from global fallout anyway.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Go watch “On the Beach”. Nobody survives!

        • That is an acceptable outcome in my opinion.

          If humans are no better than to produce the evil mess that we have, then we don’t deserve to exist. If killing the problem humans means killing all humans, so be it.

          It’s not like life has any value.

        • On the Beach……great movie.

          • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            Mediocre book. Never saw the movie.

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              For the movie/book to have the full impact, you had to be living through the times. It is like “Fail Safe” or even Dr. “Strangelove”. There are those who experienced the Cuban Missile Crisis and those who did not. Of course if you can “imagine” Armageddon on steroids, you did not have to be there.

              An interesting book was “Triumph” by Philip Wylie. Wylie was a physicist and Sci Fi author appointed to be director of Civil Defense in the Kennedy Administration. Always interested in Nuke warfare, he’d written a previous book in the early 50’s about a limited war (a novel), when he found out just how over prepared Russia and the US were for war, he actually resigned with the comment that Civil Defense in an all out war was a waste of time.

              The book detailed some interesting descriptions of what the war would be like, how fast it would be over and post war plans like missile subs going into “hiding” at the outbreak of war, resurfacing six months later, seeing if anything in the USSR survived then taking it out. .

            • The movie was actually pretty good….some good actors. Nothing violent except the on coming nuclear fallout reaching Australia. You never see it….no dead bodies or anything, just the movie ending with the submarine going back home and the population of Australia all committing suicide instead of dying from radiation. But good character acting.

              • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                It leaves out the part where the politicians and plutocrats hide in a bunker built with tax dollars and watch the Australians commit suicide via satellite surveillance before going back to smoking cigars in their luxury accommodations.

                (see also Snowpiercer (2013))

              • Yes, it did leave that part out. I never read the book.

              • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

                DPM is mixing it up with Strangelove!

  40. Add Mexico to the “Another statist shit hole that needs to be nuked into oblivion” list.

%d bloggers like this: