Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
47
-
46
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@theespionageact5249 "please tell me how free speech was violated."
In 2020, Congress summoned the CEOs of Google and Face Book to hearings about busting up tech monopolies with action on anti-trust legislation. THAT WAS THE STICK. In the questioning, Republican politicians asked pertinent questions about the level of these companies' corporate power and anti-competitive practices (preventing the overweening burgeoning of corporate power and enabling competition is SUPPOSED to be the point of antitrust law) and expressed concern about these companies' level of censorship (too high). Both in general (in pursuit of governments purpose of securing the civil rights of citizens) and topically (germane to the topic of an antitrust concern of corporations garnering too much power) this was an appropriate line of questioning. Democrat politicians, on the other hand asked the CEOs about their censorship policies, demanding that they sensor MORE. THAT WAS THE BLACKMAIL. That is exactly why this subject was brought up in the context of an "antitrust" hearing. If you are really concerned about the power exerted by "Big Tech", then it is a conflict of interest to insist that they exert more power and and throw their weight around more.
Consequently, the "helpful suggestions" from government figures and agencies were coercive, and were meant to be clearly understood as such. Coercing a publishing entity (for our current purpose it matters not whether the entity is a "publisher" or a "common carrier") to selectively remove legal material selected by the government official is a definitive and perfect definition of a violation of the First Amendment. You won't find a more "specific" violation in US history. THAT is why the communiques regarding censorship targets were confidential: because everyone involved knew it was illegal. If there were any room for doubt about this, the threats of government action from the Biden administration and Democrat politicians against Musk and Twitter for reducing the level of censorship removes that room. The threat is explicit, unmistakable, and clearly unconstitutional. Officials of THE US GOVERNMEN are currently CENSORING CITIZENS' COMMUNICATIONS, and at this point are doing so OPENLY and EXPLICITLY. The future of our Republic depends on ending this criminality, among others.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@zoeyjusko7258 " It apparently says whatever people want it to say."
If you're disingenuous enough, ANYTHING can say whatever you want it to say. Protestantism created the modern libertarian west. We (Protestants) implemented religious freedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press FIRST, and thus caused the academic, scientific, technological, and material progress that followed; and most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up with it yet. John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, making a big deal out of what they look like would have nothing to do with solving the problem. Making a big deal of what they look like was central to causing the problem in the first place, or hadn't you noticed? In other words, if the Mayors in question in (New Orleans and Chicago) weren't racist in their politics, the problem wouldn't be nearly as bad. Obviously the fallacy of their politics is thinking that you can fight racism with racism. Conservatives are not going to make that mistake, no matter how you groypers try to fool us.
No, we're not "supposed to" forget race. We're "supposed to" fixate on it, and become what they keep insisting that we are. That is their trap. There is no solution to the problem along those lines, that's a canard. Enforce the laws without fear or favor. THAT is what will WORK, and it is, not coincidentally, what is JUST.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The only thing that matters is what i'm saying is true or is iit not?That's all that i asked in the replies"
This is the first time you have brought that up and for your information it is not true that a racial or religious group is monolithically conspiring against the rest of the world. (And the closest thing to it is militant Islam, which you are helping). Of course, you knew you were blowing smoke, right?
"Therefor i'm assuming you are Jewish."
If all that matters is whether your lies are true or not, why would it matter whether I'm Jewish?
You are attempting to get around having to refute my views by giving what you think is a reason to dismiss them without thought. This is called Bulverism, which is what they teach in schools nowadays in place of critical thinking. Of course, this will not work for you on most readers, because most readers aren't bigots:
Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elsenorgatito " Protestant europe was as bad."
At the start, Protestants thought they had to be as oppressive as the Catholics in self defense, but the freedoms the West once took for granted are an accomplishment of the Protestant Reformation. Protestantism created the modern libertarian west. We (Protestants) abolished slavery throughout Christendom, implemented religious freedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press FIRST, and thus caused the academic, scientific, technological, and material progress that followed; and most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up with it yet. John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harrylee7148 There is nothing remotely racist about anything TC has ever said. You know this. Everybody knows this. It is a feeble attempt at Bulverism and it's beginning to lose its force as any fallacy does with overuse. You are unable to oppose your opponents with rational arguments so you attribute to your opponents irrational or ignoble motives for their views to try to excuse yourself and your readers from engaging his arguments, for dismissing them a priori . And you have the audacity to invoke the name of God in your slander.
Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rh-sd7tf "Schools that receive less funding have lower educational standards."
<link deleted because the channel won't let me post links>
" In the mid 1950s education spending began a rapid increase, from a low of 2.6 percent in 1953. Education spending peaked at 5.7 percent in 1976 before declining for the next decade to 4.7 percent of GDP in 1984.
In the mid 1980s education spending began to increase again. It flatlined at about 5.3 percent of GDP in the 1990s, but resumed its growth in the 2000s, reaching 6.1 percent in 2010 before declining to 5.6 percent GDP in 2015. In 2022 education spending was 6.9 percent GDP. "
(end quote)
We're spending more on education now than we did when it worked. Obviously, throwing money at the teachers unions isn't the answer or we would have the best education system in the world. Several states are passing school choice measures so things should improve from here on out. The decline started when Jimmy Carter legalized public sector unions and established the federal Department of Education. Eliminate those two mistakes and bring in school choice (vouchers) and we're good.
The situation with the teacher's union is not comparable with a private sector situation where only the wage workers are unionized and all the salaried employees are not and the union negotiates against the management. Not only the teachers, but the entire local, state, and federal administrative hierarchy is union. There is no countervailing power to negotiate against them. The unions, and the unions alone completely control the system from top to bottom so there is nobody else to blame. Nobody else has input. The local school boards and PTAs are supposed to exercise effective oversight, but the establishment has such power that when parents try to exercise oversight, the establishment calls the FBI director on speed dial to get them investigated for "terrorism".
The only aspect of K-12 education not fully under the control of the union oligarchs is the budget, and all that ever happens to the budget is it goes up. Before Jimmy Carter established the federal Department of Education and legalized public sector unions, the US had a world class primary and secondary education system. Now we're spending more and getting less, and we don't compare favorably with other nations in education. They aren't outspending us, they just don't have an empowered clique running their system as a jobs program for teachers and administrators.
Private schools can outperform most public schools for the same amount of money. Spending the same amount and getting more for your buck is the opposite of wasting money. This result is not limited to "prep" type schools with larger budgets than public schools, but applies to parochial schools as well, which usually operate on considerably smaller budgets than public schools. Think what they could do with the same per student allocation as the public schools get (and maybe a church subsidy, as well)!
<link deleted>
Even home schooled children, with the lowest "school budget" of all, and generally without teachers with masters degrees in education generally outperform public school educated children.
<link deleted>
It is the current system that is wasting money hand over fist. And a much more precious resource as well.
1
-
1
-
@seanbrown9048 Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@don key shot "lest we forget"
???
To invoke the security interests of other countries is beside the point. The self-determination of the Ukrainians is the central issue. "Security interests" of one country is not a justification for invading another country which has not attacked you. That is the only principle on which a reasonable international order can be built. Who does Russia imagine is going to threaten them if they remain within the borders they have agreed to by treaty? There is no threat. Yea, by all means, lets forget that, because it is the most lame threadbare excuse in the human history of excuses.
Nobody wants to invade Russia from the west and seize eastern Russia. Russia simply has nothing west of the Urals worth stealing. Moving invasion and occupation forces west commits them further away from your most valuable asset, the undeveloped land and resources of Siberia, and your most dangerous, acquisitive and proximate threat: CHINA! Aside from that, Russia needs to get over their delusions of relevance. Sell oil, vodka, and caviar and mind your own business. You don't deserve international attention, and you DON'T WANT IT.
1
-
@quango111
The US healthy enthusiasm for guns and gun ownership has served us well. While the US does rank somewhere in the 80s worldwide in per capita murders overall, which is high for a western country, the devil is in the details. Virtually all of these murders take place in certain Democrat dominated municipalities with strict gun control laws. Counties with the highest rate of gun ownership have the lowest crime rates.
In the UK it is becoming more common for thieves to invade British homes when they know the occupants are home. Instead of sneaking around at night, or mugging people in the streets, they break in and get the combined haul of a burglary and a mugging in one job. Naturally, in a nation where gun ownership for self defense by private citizens is prohibited, they can count on 3 young strong men with clubs or knives being able to overpower whatever is waiting for them inside. This does not happen in the US for good and sufficient reason. In this area and most, we're doing it right and Europe is doing it wrong.
(I had 5 links to articles in prominent British publications documenting my claims in my original post in my original post. YT wouldn't let me post that version. The way that that works is it looks like you've posted the reply, but when you reload the page, it's gone. I always check since I discovered this. Just think how many folk think they're replying to you, but you can't see their replies. It is easy to program a "black list" of links into the AI. Someday, I would love to see that list published, for educational purposes.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We're the party of freedom and equality under the law, and have been throughout. We're on the freedom side of every issue, except harming children. The inner city needs to be liberated from a narrow orthodoxy and indoctrination of political outlook, solution: 1st amendment. The inner city needs to be liberated from organized crime, solution: 2nd amendment. The inner city needs to be liberated from an oppressive incompetent education system, solution: education choice. The incentives and opportunities for employment need to be enhanced, solution: entitlement reform, a low minimum wage, and enforcement of immigration laws. The inner city needs moral retrenchment, solution: Christianity and the Protestant work ethic. These are the solutions championed by the conservative wing of the Republican party, and they work wherever they are tried. Ask for us by name. And thank you for asking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Republican party, is, and has been in an uninterrupted continuum from its inception, the party of freedom and equality under the law. We're on the freedom side of every issue except harming children. The inner city needs to be liberated from a narrow orthodoxy and indoctrination of political outlook, solution: 1st amendment. The inner city needs to be liberated from organized crime, solution: 2nd amendment. The inner city needs to be liberated from an oppressive incompetent education system, solution: education choice. The incentives and opportunities for employment need to be enhanced, solution: entitlement reform, a low minimum wage, and enforcement of immigration laws. The inner city needs moral retrenchment, solution: Christianity and the Protestant work ethic. These are the solutions championed by the conservative wing of the Republican party, and they work wherever they are tried. Ask for us by name.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derekwbell420 "Fascism"
There is nothing raci54 or authoritarian about Trump's policies, so slander. You see the law enforcement apparatus mobilized against anybody remotely conservative, and you somehow claim to regard TRUMP as fa5cist? Whose rights was HE violating? Who was HE using the legal apparatus to punish for their political beliefs? WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? Your expressed opinion has no basis in fact.
Your party is echoing the Na5is point for point. The Black Bloc is the Brown Shir4s. The "mostly peaceful" riots they fueled, funded and armed by leftist billionaires, is KristaIInacht. Jan 6 is the Reichstag fire. It's all there, including your racial segregation, prejudice and racial and political slander and hate, using government power to suppress and terrorize political opposition, moving to restrict gun ownership and possession, locking down state control of businesses and the economy, media censorship, using schools as political indoctrination centers, mobilizing taxpayer money for the production of partizan propaganda, abortion and euthanasia; all straight out of the fa5cist playbook, including your economic program. Your side is doing all these things, we are not and never were. For YOU to call US fa5cist is projection to a delusional degree.
Tax cuts are not authoritarian. Deregulation is not authoritarian. Downsizing government is not authoritarian. Free speech is not authoritarian. The right to keep and bear arms is not authoritarian. Freedom of religion is not authoritarian. Criticism of a government lapdog corporate media is not authoritarian. Speaking the truth to power in the face of persecution is not authoritarian. Opposition to the firing of employees, the cutoff of their access to funds or commerce, violence against their persons and property, and the restriction of their communication on the basis of their political beliefs is not authoritarian. Dismantling a corrupt entrenched unelected bureaucratic state is not authoritarian. All of these things are the diametric opposite of authoritarian. Conservatism is anti-authoritarian fundamentally and point by point. Leftism is authoritarian fundamentally and point by point. We are on the freedom side of every issue except harming children, and you shouldn't be free to do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giogiovanni4287
$5 for an apple and I don't get disenfranchised by imported Democrats, where do I sign?! (Oh, I already did.) In point of fact, the legitimate will of the people is already conventionally expressed by the immigration laws as they exist. Why is it every other contraband issue, like Marijuana, the debate is about whether to change the law, but on this one the debate is on whether to support lawlessness? (answer: Only illegal immigration gives Democrats their slaves back)
And don't say that Americans won't do agricultural work, it's another form of entry level employment for rural youth, like fast food places are for cities. In my agricultural region the cash crop isn't fruits and vegetables, but before I turned 18 and got my first factory job, I cut corn out of beans and vise versa, loaded bails of hay and straw on the hay wagon and into the barn, detassled corn and such things, I also washed dishes and cleaned floors for work/study at college. Most of these jobs were exempted by category from minimum wage laws, but I bet I got more, compensating for inflation, than the illegals are getting as an hourly wage.
1
-
@giogiovanni4287
Current immigration laws FAVOR applicants from 3rd world countries, except for people who have talents in demand, or, yes, money, thanks to selection quotas from a bill sponsored by Ted Kennedy in the Immigration act of 1965. The exceptions for talent and money are, of course, to benefit US, not to discriminate against the poor and the incompetent. The waiting list for Mexicans is bound to be greater than most of the rest of the world, for geographic reasons, and Canada offers better economic and social opportunities than Mexico, so there is less reason to leave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Where was your frustration when he called Neo N** "very fine people" after one of them took a life with his car? "
I was disagreeing with him on this forum, everybody there on both "sides" were evil, and both sides came to fight. This is not about frustration, it is about criminality and oppression.
"Where was your anger when you see images of migrant children sleeping on bare floors with aluminum foil for blankets?"
Waiting for a chance to vote Obama out of office.
I was unable to find a quote where Trump called Obama a Muslim. How about a link?
"Before you lie, DJT said in a 30 second press conference Obama was indeed a US citizen. Which Trump was lying?"
I don't understand, it is possible to be both a US Citizen and a Muslim, or were you thinking about the birther thing and got confused?
"That was the most ultimate slander I have ever witnessed"
Were you born yesterday?
This slander and violence from the left started in the 60s and has continued apace. They called Reagan a fascist. They slandered George W and advocated assassinating him, and he was the most extreme about never lashing back, did that pacify them? They tore at him like jackals. A lot is made of the Democrat reaction to Trump, but really they have been so slanderous to every Republican president and candidate that there is nothing they are saying about Trump that they have not already said about other Republicans. What's new is the widespread, sustained, and organized violence. This MUST NOT get a change from us. If the oppressors are REWARDED for violence, they will double down on violence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
For heaven's sake, not the "conservative shills" crap again. If you think that conservative content is the path to easy money, you haven't the merest clue about the media landscape. Every conservative spokesman goes into the field knowing he could make many times more hawking the other side. The side underwritten by oodles of well connected billionaire donors. The side that never has to worry about demonitization, cancellation, censorship or subsidized industrial strength slander, harassing litigation, organized subsidized pre-pardoned harassment and outright naked violence, and political prosecution from a lockstep monolithic power bloc of the bureaucratic state, legacy and state sponsored media, the electronic gatekeepers, their shady cynical oligarchs, and their many dupes and henchmen.
It just irks the hell out of you that we work-stained Bob Cratchits in our deplorable masses can glean a ha'pence here, a tu'pence there and have the unmitigated gall to pool our penury and prayers; our blood, sweat, tears, and toil; our individually feeble voices and indomitable goodwill to collectively support a few brave and talented men and women to publish some genteel and diffident criticism against the most powerful corrupt political machine the world has known. "It's not FAIR", sobs the crybully in agony as he lays on the whip. "There oughta be a LAW!!" It never occurred to anyone in the history of mankind to speak the truth to power FOR MONEY, for good and sufficient reason. It's bad for business.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1