Youtube comments of (@indonesiaamerica7050).
-
259
-
203
-
117
-
101
-
97
-
77
-
62
-
61
-
54
-
53
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
42
-
37
-
37
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Politically Correct means what it says but you have to look at context. These morons posit that all morality, all social behaviors and policies, are innately political. Liberty under the classic defition is a delusion at best or at worst a delusion that leads to 'oppressors' enslaving everyone else. Hence, liberty is redefined as 'lack of disparity' or solving the visible and invisible class struggles. They have determined that they must use clever language to signal the right ideas without empowering their enemies. They developed this doubletalk as they realized that their stupid "international workers' revolution" was not going to get them anything. In the end, Politically Correct means this is the new morality in the context suggested and if you don't follow, you are stupid and helping the oppressors. If you criticize PC talking points you are helping oppressors for selfish or deluded reasons and you are now identified with the enemy. However, the important point is that these are moral claims, not "political" per se. (The original definition of "political" means "pertaining to the polity" and they believe that all of life pertains to the polity because they're parasites that are helpless on their own.) It's a culture war and "political" means anything that affects them according to their worldview and they have determined that they must lie because "the status quo order" came forth as a result of "the book of lies." IOW, they blame it all on the Hebrew Christian bible and the "Patriarchy" created from that culture. They have no problem with "patriarchy" when it can be used against Christians and Jews or anyone that is apparently defending "capitalism" or "received wisdom" morality. They feel that they are intellectually and morally superior to everyone else even when they can't articulate why. Noam Chomsky helps reinforce this contradiction with his insane linguistics theories (nobody really understands what they think or why, ultimately this is summarized by Richard Dawkins, among others).
They're idiotic liars protected by academic cults. They don't even know how deluded they are.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@The13thRonin Dude, no. This entered the "corporate" realm under FDR. They are basically coerced by legal duties pertaining to DC regulations and fiduciary duty arguments that are presented to their Boards that are "inclusive" of "stake holders" and so forth and what happens is that even if all the Board Members realize they're getting pressured illegally it is legal and rational to cave in because as a practical matter the US government can "regulate" and sue them out of business completely and therefore fighting a losing battle goes against their fiduciary duties to the shareholders. Why do you think Elon Musk drives them insane? First he defied the pressures to unionize US auto manufacturing at Tesla. Even in California. Second, he bought Twitter and used his unfiltered opinions to sort of lash out at what he is slowly discovering. IOW, his Critical Thinking in social matters and politics was stunted by too much exposure to Hollywood and Silly Con Valley. Trump is an exception to the rule as well and you can decide on your own why his life experiences prepared him to stand up to this Marxist cult. Most cave. BTW, even that real estate crisis taht magically bloomed for Obama was set up by DOJ "organic" lawsuits and consent decrees pertaining to "red lines" and statistical disparities for "disenfranchised" people that don't own their own residences. Do you actually think that the banks want to be regulated? LOL. This all happened under FDR's New Deal where he was going to save society from the "chaos" of economic liberty under the rule of law. The embedded Fabian Marxists have had the upper hand since then. What's new since Clinton is that the Marxists expected more Communism from Bill, not less. They were pissed at Bill by the time his second term had ended. They actually pinned their hopes on Hillary radicalizing the White House. She tried. But anyway, it's normal to have 2 terms of a Republican after two term of a Democrat. So they had that phase ready. The WTC attacks were something every Communist dreams about. Every global war is the next likely "international workers' revolution". They worked Bush over with "nation building" programs on the one hand and "war criminal" accusations on the other. Obama appeared as a Magic Nee Grow (it's a literary trope) at just the right time and he also had a radical, angry Marxist spouse. Even though Hillary's campaign of 2008 was planned since Clinton's first win, the cult pivoted to Obama for obvious reasons and decided to put Hillary in as the third consecutive Marxist Presidential term. You have no idea how and why Trump triggered them. People still don't get it. Trump was proof that their entire "arc of history" Fabian Marxist scheme was delusional. Trump is Hitler not because he's anything like Hitler other than the fact that Hitler loudly opposed Soviet Vanguard Party Communism in Germany. Even Reagan, fighting the Soviets, did not crush the CCP. Trump threatened to extinguish the true Vanguard Party and the DNC Marxist cabals all in one term. Hence, COVID.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I've never trusted any particular person or party. Trust is an earned thing. But I have never, ever voted for a Democratic Party politician. Having said that, I also accept a version of the "pendulum theory" in that you can't have one party rule even if you consistently identify that party as clearly superior. You have to give each new generation and chance to learn from their mistakes and also to show each new generation why the other party should rule for at least half the time. The US Constitution itself leads to a government that should not rely on having the very best in power. The strength of the USA is it's vast power developed through the cooperation of free market commerce and charitable works. But the longer term trends make me less tolerant of the evil US Democratic Party. I didn't favor Obama over McCain but neither did I favor McCain. I didn't bother to vote. And I'm glad that I didn't. But what I noticed about the Obama era was that almost right away they had people murmuring about "Tea Party racist". And then in 2009, less than a year in, I heard from Jimmy Carter's own mouth the idea that the Tea Party doesn't mind Obama's policies (like socialized medicine scams!) so much as that fact that they're latent southern racists. So I started paying more attention and I realized that these people are not well-intentioned fools. They're evil parasitic liars. Obama himself is just going along with it because that's how he was groomed to think. I don't even think Obama is the worst among them. Hillary is the most evil of the past 30 years. Although Biden might be worse, we just don't have all of the evidence to make comparisons of the various Mafia crime families to see which one really is the worst of the worst. But the point is that although I've always been highly skeptical of people that make specious claims, even while I was still in grade school, over time I have noticed that these people are, just as I have said, harboring parasitic Marxist depravity in a cult like fashion in order to seek power and be in a position to parse out "social justice" in exactly the same fashion as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and so forth. They are in the most prosperous nation on earth and they never found a way to simply be successful by their own standards and joined with the cult of blame shifters that tell stories to explain away "the rigged system of Capitalism" and how they have the magic solutions. They know that they're lying but this is OK because they are telling the truth about how much hatred is in their hearts for the people taht they envy and want to destroy. The example of "Get Trump" is just a crescendo in the same mode of operation they have used for each generation. I did not want to come to the conclusion. Everyone in my family defends Democratic Party politicians and only my elder brother is willing to denounce the crooked policies and actions. But even then he just admits to me here and there that I have been right all along. The "Twitter Files" was the very first time he actually brought it up to me and basically said you've been right all along.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yeah, it's stupid. No rights are absolute in the sense that you can still get dragged in to court. But the burden of proof is on the others to show how their rights or prerogatives win the lawsuit. On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment is the most emphatically "absolute" in the sense that there's no "due process" wiggle room.
For example, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause..."
Not: "...shall not be infringed".
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
raid (n.)
early 15c., "mounted military expedition," Scottish and northern English form of rade "a riding, journey," from Old English rad "a riding, ride, expedition, journey; raid," (see road). The word fell into obscurity by 17c., but it was revived by Scott ("The Lay of the Last Minstrel," 1805; "Rob Roy," 1818), with a more extended sense of "attack, foray, hostile or predatory incursion." By 1873 of any sudden or vigorous descent (police raids, etc.). Of air raids by 1908.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AndeH7 It's hard for me to imagine but what I see is that lots of people spend time in law school and practice law in long careers and never build any interest in Federal law and what has happened to the country since FDR's war on the Bill of Rights in favor of The New Deal. The Byzantine bureaucracy created during the New Deal and expanded under WWII and the Cold War is now just "Our Democracy" where the people in power don't ever face any elections and control who can run for office. The status quo is unfathomable if you just study the Constitution itself and then just accept "modern life is complicated" as an explanation for why things are the way that they now are. It's actually not that complicated if you research SCOTUS rulings decade by decade since Dred Scott v. Sandford through Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Citizens United v. FEC. And here is the plain English summary. Dred Scott ruling put together a bunch of demagogic rhetoric to explain that the slaves were not actual Citizens because they as a group were not part of the US Revolution. LOL. Crazy, eh? After the Civil War, as we all know, the so called Jim Crow laws were all about de facto apartheid or official two track justice system. And whenever you have a "two track" justice system there is always a hidden third track: The permanent ruling class that guard and protects the innate injustice. So, basically, alongside the KKK and Jim Crow, enforcing "apartheid", you also had Progressives putting together a permanent ruling class. The new institutions didn't really gel until The New Deal. There were several decades where The New Deal legislation and stupid Progressive court rulings lived right alongside KKK and Progressivism. Progressivism is required for the entire New Deal to even be suggested. And Progressivism relies on dogmatic Marxism and dogmatic Darwinism. But the dogmas are presumed to be "settled science" and arguing against Progressives is proof to them that you have cognitive dissonance described by Richard Dawkins as "God Delusion". And like Calvinists, they decree (and propagate the doctrine) that if you disagree it means you were made that way so they have no burden to improve their arguments. LOL. You see these tensions not only in pop culture but in the Federal judges sort of making dual commentary and finding versus dissenting arguments on judicial panels, including SCOTUS. But if you understand my analytical paradigm and step through the relevant history even a properly educated high school student can understand not just the US Constitution and how it should be applied but how Progressives have destroyed the rule of law in DC as a desperate gambit after losing the Civil War where the Secessionists never had any vision of living out equal application of the law. They enjoyed running a permanent ruling class and the cult, even over many generations, never really overcame this problem. The Democrats were always afraid of Patrician Republicans. The buzzword now is The Patriarchy because that fits better with the global "two class" war between Capitalists and Oppressed classes. And after you finish cruising through those histories take another look at Robespierre. He was the same kind of deluded "freedom fighter" that simply envied the monarch's power and wanted it for himself. That's what these people are. They feel oppressed, truly, because they know they have no skills, must blame society for their laziness and paranoia, and set out to resolve it by "flipping the script" and jumping not to the "Oppressor class" but to the new unspoken ruling class that was created by Soviet Communism. Every Marxist revolution since Lenin follows this third class as ruling class model to solve the alleged two class war. The New Deal was a Fabian Marxist revolution. Once you remove all of these blatantly corrupt ideas from your mind you no longer are mystified by moronic judges and their insane behaviors and rhetoric. The Constitution really is that simple to follow. Deciphering the BS takes time. But it's not unfathomable. The corruption is equally easy to understand if you look in the right places.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Cavallaro2376
My God you are such a loser. I already explained that all of leftism is predicated on the libel that "conservatives" are "Gaslighting" with "establishment institution." The US Constitution, according to that theory, is a product of Gaslighting. Etc. Therefore, disrupting the Gaslighting by any means is a legitimate form of "social justice."
Irrelevant gibberish:
"CBS News, ABC News, NBC News were around for half a century before Fox "News"...Republicans grew despondent about hearing the facts from what was then called "The Big Three", so Rupert Murdock, an Australian immigrant, created Fox "News"...Fox "News", a station that presents the conservative version of the "truth" including alternative-"facts", false accusations, conspiracy theories, fiction and fabrication."
Leftwing "gaslighting" theories are rooted in 18th century pseudosciences and philosophies. It has nothing to do with "television" or any of the dumb factions memes that you were inculcated use to try to understand the world.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
I just want to remind people of something I have said before about these networks and cable operations that are owned by massive conglomerates. They usually have cellular phone operations, internet access operations, now they're buying production studios for film and TV and the whole world is carved up by just a few of these international media corporations. These are the kinds of corporations subject to regulation and or antitrust actions. What has happened in the modern era (since FDR) is that big corporations have to "virtue signal" if they want protected spaces. The entire idea of the New Deal was to organize key industries so that they could deliver more value and keep prices down so even poor people could eat well. That was in FDR's initial campaign for POTUS. But anywaym, it's a known side effect that small farms would fail and get bought buy bigger operations that could join the segmented land and plan crop rotations and so forth. IOW, these are planned "social justice" monopolies, but not quite monopolies as in only one for the whole country but usually they faced no local or regional competition for things like eggs, chicken, certain crops like corn and so forth. So what happened over time is that the DOJ is supposed to investigate antitrust violations. Since network television was even conceived they were "licensed" aka regulated monopolies but 3 major networks would compete, in theory, but at the same time they must also deliver value according to what measure? Social justice. Put another way, if you piss off the post WWII Deep State you will get investigated. OTOH, if decades of history prove that it's ok to keep consolidating in "Television" and then in "media" and "data access" and whatnot and certain kinds of appeasement, like donating to the SJWs in Congress and flattering "government" in the "news division" will keep the antitrust lawsuits away, taht becomes part of the calculus. From what I understand, take CNN for this example, CNN sold rights to cable providers and the profit motive for CNN itself was those licensing fees and even though they also sold commercial spots that alone would not keep CNN afloat. So the question of salaries for moronic SJWs is really about getting enough eyeballs and convinced the DC fascists that it's a good idea not to split up these conglomerates. They are literal PR flacks for the Deep State and the elected officials that must protect the Deep State or face a culling from the DNC. It seems like government propaganda for that reason. It actually is government propaganda as a strategy of the umbrella corporations that own them. MSNBC was launched by Microsoft not long after they reached a settlement with Clinton's DOJ. So, yeah. They act like agents of this Deep State aka Military Industrial Complex and in effect they are.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Obama could be charged under Deprivation of Rights Under the Color of Law. Hillary could easily be convicted on Espionage Act violations and her "criminal intent" definitely has to do with her Global Grift foundation that makes the Biden family look like small town mafiosi. Which is basically what those crackheads are. Biden should also be charged with violating the Espionage Act not merely because of the documents floating around but we also know crackhead "smartest guy, ever" used them to keep Burisma cronies up to speed on CIA analysis from Biden's VPOTUS (illegal) VPOTUS cache. The only one that has a clear Constitutional right to do as he pleases with "national security information" from their own tenure is Trump. And if it makes you feel better, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama can't be charged for all of the BS they hauled off. Actually, Bill Clinton got caught sending Sandy Berger in to remove documents from the national archive and they only charged Berger but not Bill. He got a slap on the risk for literally stealing a document already given to the national archives and supposedly it had something to do with warnings about OBL and the WTC attacks. But anyway, the accusers are obviously traitors afraid Trump himself will hold them accountable for their numerous crimes.
Now, this "Bush lied" BS is just that. Nobody lied. It's possible somewhere along the line that somebody intentionally "cooked" the intelligence gathered. The "lie" is, allegedly, that (I think Italian) intel agents found "yellow cake" yada yada then that turned out to be inaccurate or exaggerated. Even that is not really regarded as a lie. Bush lied, people died" in childish political rhetoric. Lastly, nobody thinks that Hussein was going to leave everything in place when he knew for years that Bush threated to get UN to permit US and allies to go in. Come on, man. You think Hussein didn't follow the UN hearings? LOL. And Israel had already attacked Iraq nuclear weapons sites in the past. We're supposed to forget about that? Or we're supposed to just "know" taht Israel destroyed it all and then they decided to forget about it? Come on, man. Don't give false equivalence BS. You make it sound like Trump isn't innocent but that he needs to have every other living President join him in prison. Stop this childishness.
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
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dylancraven3979
factoid (n.)
1973, "published statement taken to be a fact because of its appearance in print," from fact + -oid, first explained, if not coined, by Norman Mailer.
Factoids ... that is, facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority. [Mailer, "Marilyn," 1973]
By 1988 it was being used in the sense of "small, isolated bit of true factual information."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/factoid
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gerard Paradela
plagiarism
[pley-juh-riz-uh m, jee-uh-riz]
1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:
It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne.
Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off.
2. a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation:
“These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms,” the editor said, tossing them angrily on the floor.
Unauthorized use of X. You have to show that X is owned by another and that it was presented as original by the one you accuse.
People running for office often repeat the same themes cycle after cycle. Get a life.
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
-
Highlighted reply
Vantahawk
"Indonesia America
How exactly have all of Marx' critiques or at least parts thereof been disproven? "
Very easy. Private capital is not ipso facto abuse of power. All of his theories hinge on capital as a driving force rather than a tool or mere paradigm. You can see the failures every time someone starts with nothing and accumulates the fruits of his own labor, as wages, and then becomes a "capitalist." In fact the entire "capital versus labor" paradigm is proven patently absurd. The fact that some people don't want to find ways to become successful or that others inherit money does not prove his theories at all that private capital leads to insurmountable political dominance and/or cultural hegemony. All of his critiques can be refuted and resolved with only slightly more informed critiques where underneath the "justice" claims, when they are legitimate, you have abuse of power and economic disparity can become a byproduct. If people are free to earn and grow economically without being "born" in to it then this alone disproves his theories. Looking at "disparity" in view of questions pertaining to the rule of law versus de facto oligarchies and asks what people have done to earn their power, wealth and so forth. And in the age of universal education, you should also ask why people remain disenfranchised when they have so many choices to participate in modern markets.
"The monopolisation and cartelisation of privat industries has been a growing problem."
You must be joking. The British monarch had "competition law" and the US derived Antitrust law from that. If we do have de facto monopolies today it is only because they are protected by Social Justice elitists under FDR's New Deal paradigms, IOW, socialists asked for it, because that is what economic socialism is, or you have old regimes where the monarch or the state is allowed to have its own "sovereign investment fund" (or some functional equivalent). Rule of law capitalism plus free public education has actually answered all legitimate "socialist" complaints. We only need government food programs because the socialists have done everything possible to destroy churches and private charity, not to mention small farms that used to be able to find free markets to keep themselves and neighbors fed.
"And wealth disparity has also been getting worse as capitalism has been deregulated in recent years. "
That's an absurd bogey man and begging the question fallacy, not to mention the basis for endless straw man arguments. Nobody said "capitlaism solves disparity." Disparity is natural and good. Nobody has every offered a rational explanation for "the problem with (any discernible) disparity." It's better to explain your "disparity" whinges as envy and your desire to take things that others probably earned because Marx suggested that they didn't in fact earn it so it must be at least partly yours to take (or tax).
"Wages have stayed stagnant in the US for a while now while corporations enrich themselves more rapidly than ever."
This is more nonsense. Why should wages for X go up? Earnings go up when value/productivity goes up. So you cheat by comparing some fixed or normalized kind of skill, like ditch digging, as if static workers are supposed to be led up to Heaven by the government. If workers want to earn more they need to plan to increase the value of their work. Or accept the status quo. That's life. That is life as it should be.
"My main beef is only with private property."
You were taught that your envy plus continuous whining leads to Social Justice. You have been lied to.
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
-
Really Doe
Moron,
I doubt that you can read or reason properly but for the sake of those that can, I already wrote that FDR fits more than any other US President based on historical facts. I'm not the one with a fetish of arguing by labeling. The New Deal and his treatment of Congress, SCOTUS, and his willingness to run for 4 terms, unlike any other US President in history, demonstrates that FDR saw himself as a kind of unique political messiah that was totally closed minded about any opposition to his "New Deal" socialism and approach to foreign policy.
You morons have no idea what he was about. Apparently you don't even know what "autocrat" actually means. Did you study any history at all? Do you not ever consider the relevant facts pertaining to your kooky rants? Did it ever occur to you that FDR's relationship with Stalin was more valued than his relationship with the British because FDR was a crazed neo-Marxist Progressive that thought the Communists and their command economy ideas (as in New Deal) were the way of the future for all of the world? Serious scholars that are not afraid to look at history from an unbiased frame can see that FDR had the same beliefs as the Marxists other than his own Christian beliefs and that the USA was regarded as "exceptional" in that it would not need to go through a bloody revolution to achieve the Marxist prophecies for "progress" and so forth. When neo-Marxists denounce "Communism" they're only denouncing their rivals and/or the need for revolution. If you believe in Marx's historical materialism and "progress" you also believe in Communism. You just don't know what he labels mean.
As far as Trump as "autocrat" this is literally propagated by neo-Marxist academic lunatics that "make the case" by using "signaling" and "stereo typing" profiling techniques. At best these critiques belong in a conversation about perceptions and leadership styles and how propagation by enemies can spin. But soon you see that they are the ones that regard themselves as "victims" and therefore "enemies" of an elected President. Not just that they're triggered by his speech but that they can't recognize their own childish reactions. As if they really think they can connect him with "autocrats." They obviously don't even understand the meaning behind his rhetoric.
What it shows is that the academic class of paid pontificators can make careers out of teaching "criticism" to students and nobody will really see just what a crazed cult they've created over time.
John Bolton's fear of Trump is based on his view of "democracy." He's a very good attorney. He's done a good job playing his assigned roles in the past. Kooks don't understand how that works. With Trump, Bolton didn't actually disagree with Trump's policies. He was triggered by his manners that Bolton instinctively profiled like a Progressive kook. Because although he's not a doctrinaire Progressive, he spends so much time with them that some of the Progressive cultural "community sense" has affected his thinking. He fears Trump because he's afraid that, generally speaking, Progressives are right about "the demos" that they regard as idiots. That they are "triggered" and that "capitalists" like Trump only care about profit. It doesn't mean Bolton is afraid of these policy changes. Bolton knows that Communists are far more dangerous. What's amazing to me is that Bolton thinks Trump is in another class from, say, the Bush family. And he is but only in a very superficial sense. The Bush family has raised their children as "conservative Progressives" in that they believe in the Progressive worldview but play a kind of Randian Libertarian role as "conservers of patriotism and stuff" in the US.
Progressives think that you're an idiot. Unlike me, they don't blame their own academic doctrines and "public education" establishment. They blame Darwinism. They don't expect students to be able to catch up once they fall behind (or worse, when they show up as "low IQ" from the start). They expect a wide diversity in results from K-12 and try to create "egalitarian learning" so that the students don't notice this wide disparity (that they are partially responsible for). Apparently you've never read and contemplated Orwell's Animal Farm.
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
-
These are all exaggerations, to say the least. But my problem basically comes from this: US politicians destroyed our schools and destroyed economic liberty at all levels from getting an entry level job to opening up your own business, whatever business that might be. The economic liberty is greater in China than it is here, but China is Communist and so you can't really count on keeping it. With respect to India, it is very large and as far as I know all of the engineering schools teach in English. So adding that pool of workers is obviously favorable to employers. Especially since the cost of living for the students is much lower and it's not just "culture" but Indian workers rarely carry debts with them to the USA. According to Libertarian economics this is all OK because both the US and India are experiencing "progress" in "knowledge" and material development. But hiring Chinese and hiring Indian workers in the USA is full of risks. China is obviously the very worst because there are no benefits to us other than a willingness to work for almost nothing if the regime orders it. And because China is "Communist" and does not hold elections, its leaders can exploit its own workers and do anthi9ng that they want so if China governs badly (not unlike North Korea) all of this "development" of their people will not go to the benefit of the masses but will only make the regime stronger and more likely to turn to zero-sum expansion (like China's expansion in to the "South China Sea". So there is no way we should ever hire people associated with the CCP. Even if they are acting in good faith the CCP tracks its subjects globally and never overlooks an opportunity for espionage and sabotage of "Capitalism". We don't have those risks with India. India's development creates more prosperity for itself and for global trade which has the potential to benefit other nations and its citizens. The key to all of this is how does it affect the rule of law? And the problem with any immigrants these days is that the DC regime is using everyone to manage their own "GDP" goals and then "Disparity" (that actually is planned, expected and hoped for) is handled through government programs that turn everyone in to subservient subjects that care less about their Constitutional rights and more about their "civil rights" as they perceive them. IOW, to cut to the chase, the people that act as gatekeepers for visas and programs and so forth use it politically with a Marxist materialist worldview. And they don't GAF if their own people are harmed because they think everyone is spoiled and that the world is far too overpopulated. That's the problem. There is nobody to run these visa (and any "Equity") programs in good faith. They are all scams against the US Citizens. Even if the corporations, like Tesla, ask for more workers' visas, the whole program is so rotten that you can be sure that they will screw everyone involved. The US Federal government has way too much power and compromising with something that should be a good thing in theory is stupid because we already know what they have done. We must "drain the swamp" by taking all discretion away from these unelected bureaucrats. Maybe Trump can come up with a reasonable compromise for his administration and just hope that collectively, Elon, Vivek and The Donald can slash deep state power, taxes, burdensome regulations and so forth so that in 1 year or 2 nobody will even think about workers' visas and whatever compromise Trump comes up with. But Vivek and Elon are acting like Dunning Kruger ignoramuses. They are unaware of their own cognitive deficits. They are very proud of themselves for the successes they experienced in Silly Con Valley. It's a well known disease. Trust me on that.
But to summarize my response to your comment on India, it's a bigger (English speaking) pool. They have no "national" superiority of any kind relative to the USA. Except they have a bigger population and they actually have some pretty good engineering programs. I assume they want to start building their own native jets planes and so forth so actually, the best engineers really don't want to leave India. Elon Musk, you know, I don't want to gratuitously insult the guy, but he's sitting here with a Tesla factory in Communist China and he thought he would get away with building Teslas in California and never have to worry about the labor unions. He's not a realist at all. Vivek also seems to be getting a fat head, but I think Trump is experienced enough to know what I'm talking about here. Trump ran his own airline for a while and I think Trump is the kind of guy that learns from his mistakes. He has dealt with a lot of arrogant architects and engineers in his time and you can be sure of this because it's impossible that he hasn't.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@jenns1483 The BC he published on the White House web site was is referred to in legal terms as a facsimile. It's not valid as a standalone document. What I mean is that there used to be an early type of proprietary Optical Character Recognition that was used to save space over paper records. But digital compression technologies were so simple at that time that what it did was scan the document and only save parts needed to reproduce it again with algorithms rather than reproducing a file the way an ordinary digital file would. That means there was no pixel to pixel data. It scanned and interpreted fonts and then recorded the text in place of the image. The only time it saved some part of the file as an image is when it failed to "recognize" the typeface and could not record the fonts. Obama's had fragments of images and then standard fonts to fill in the rest of the data as recorded in the database. This is easy to fake because, well, that is exactly how people have always faked documents. IOW, it's very similar to "photoshop" when there were no digital tools, just film, paper and darkrooms. And glue. So, the document he posted can't be submitted in court alone but as part of a "certificate" where some official signs his "certainty" that this facsimile "certainly" matches the official records in terms of data records even though it's not a true reproduction of the original document. In that sense, it was "fake" in no uncertain terms. That was another point in history when a Democrat can "certify" anything that they want ad you can no longer ask any questions about it. Certify is now a magic word in their circles and the whole world has become stupider than ever. Facsimile, they will now tell you, means exact copy. But a facsimile is supposed to contain the exact content in a similar format to the original. A photocopy is not a facsimile. You used to her phrases like "reasonable facsimile" meaning that the opinion was offered taht it truly represents the facts even if not an exact copy in terms of style or whatever. But as I explained, these OCR facsimiles are stored and printed in the exact same way that anyone can copy to make a fake. So a court won't accept these OCR reproductions without it being certified and the judge can reject that as well. These things are all so easy to fake. And BTW, I have all of my original documents from my Birth Certificate, my original Social Security Card and expired Passports and IDs because it just doesn't take that much effort to keep them together and secure when you might need them. Barack didn't have his original Birth Certificate and that says something about his background. I'm not saying it's disqualifying but vetting people is about seeing how they account for things. When someone is always making excuses and then his team calls critics "racist" instead of trying to explain what he learned in his life about running things...these people rarely make good executives and rarely are people that can be trusted with important assets. Like any job that requires security clearances of insurance of losses when you effe up something...Obama seems like an OK guy and should have taken his shot as a lawyer in the private sector or stayed in the Senate. Not too many people are really cut out for running an executive office. And US President? They should all be strenuously vetted but Democratic Party candidates are never properly vetted.
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
-
@arbarnet24
The patients with SARS symptoms started showing up in ER and ICU units right around the time the rumors started pertaining to Wuhan. The patients were treated according to best known practices. The waves of patients began to dissipate and soon after that the Trump Impeachment trial fizzled and US media and leftwing politicians started blowing the "Covid" panic horns. This panic shot around the entire world in the closest possible thing to real-time. BTW, virtually all of those patients came in because they had SARS symptoms that they associated with their own bad health and they were all over 50 (I remember one patient, a heavy smoker, he might have lymphoma, and he was about 45 and he went home shortly after arriving, I saw him a few weeks ago and he still doesn't want to get any more tests and says he can breathe just fine now) and usually smokers, often diabetic (too much white rice over time can cause that). Conditions in Wuhan are worse for individuals exposed and transmitting to others. It could be the worst place in the world both for spreading disease and surviving SARS symptoms once infected. Never mind the lab that is under suspicion. The USA by contrast has no polities or lands at all that come anywhere close to that unless you're a subway worker stuck underground with all of that pollution day after day.
The reason it's harder to spread in the USA is because the air and sanitary-hygienic conditions are among the best in the world (other than isolated pockets of, whatever you want to call lawless areas where people reject all motion norms that go against their instincts). Based on patients and conditions that I saw in Asia (better than Wuhan, not as good as, say, the clean parts of LA or San Francisco) before the panic and the seasonal trend (everyone just assumed that it was a return of some SARS variant and that is exactly what it is) I would have expected it to die out in most of the USA even more rapidly. Even in the homeless populations you weren't getting a lot of SARS patients. After the official panic buttons were pushed the entire way of reporting both risks and alleged "cases" just went insane. And still is insane. It makes me so angry. It looks like this virus might spread more effectively than the earlier SARS outbreak of 2002-2003 but we'll never know because the only data we have will be comparing this one to the 2002 outbreak to samples for SARS2 taken after all of the crazy panicked politicians made the virus easier to spread. It's more like doing an economic study than "medical science" even though we have "microscopes" and patient cases to study. It's the "economics" that are controversial and by that I don't mean "commerce" but the masses of individual humans and their distinct behaviors before and after exposure to the virus and the panic. Most of the important variables will never be known. All we can do it make better and better prediction and treatment models. The demagogic liars exploit all of this confusion and deliberately contribute to it.
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
-
Captain Kirk
"OHM, "authoritarianism" aka autocratic top down gov't control can manifest itself in either left or right authoritarian gov't and has done so throughout history. Russia and Nazi Germany during the beginning of the 20th century are a good example."
You're wrong. The Russian and German movements overthrew the established order. That makes them left wing. Learn the relevant history. You can't just stigmatize and "otherize" regimes that do the same things that you want to do by calling them right wing.
Right wing authoritarianism in history is represented by monarchy plus mercantilism (and modern iterations of parasitic economic interventionism). Leftwing authoritarianism is "Progressive Social Justice" under modern paranoid "oppressor/oppressed" paradigms. The only right wing authoritarian regimes today are Shariah kingdoms. Unless you count the British and their commonwealth nations.
Right wing = stable and using established institutions to retain power. Leftwing = aspirational (and delusional) views of Social Justice, democracy and so forth even if they hearken back to memes of the past, like "nationalism" or "the greatness of the Romans" or whatever. If a stable monarch styles himself after Caesar, that's right wing. If a revolutionary Marxist pretends to be protecting tradition "just like Caesar" then that is left wing, though somewhat more stealthy than self-described Communists, hence regarded as "right wing" according to Gramscian "Communist common sense."
In theory, right wing authoritarianism can emerge very slowly from leftwing revolutions by gradually coopting the power taken by the dumb leftists. In theory the USA could turn to "right wing totalitarian regime" if it completely destroys separations of power, slowly, all while claiming to be preserving "norms" or something like that. FDR's New Deal was about stealth socialism and gradual authoritarianism. If the so-called right wing coopted that, that could be regarded as right wing authoritarianism at this point in history because the New Deal has been institutionalized and is seen by the majority as "normal" and "democratic." However, the right in the USA in fact strives to preserve the US Constitution, which is inherently liberal/libertarian and it is still the left that poses as "centrist" while destroying Constitutional protections of the demos (ordinary citizens) as individuals. Progressives want to be empowered to parse all legal rights and entitlements hence their rights regimes are not about individual rights at all but "right" to have "altruistic totalitarian" protectors in the capitals, meting out Social Justice.
1
-
Willy Won
2 hours ago
"I am so impressed by the fact I never know critical thinking is a bad thing for my sense and logic."
You obviously can not read properly. I clearly wrote that you need to learn what critical thinking is so that you stop using Critical Theory dogmas instead.
"How can I be so stupid to believe in objective analysis of facts. "
You have no idea what an objective fact is.
"Capitalism and free market must be the ultimate solution for all problem in the all human race. It must be so."
Nobody said ultimate. I said that it's simply part and parcel of individual freedom. You're a kook that can't even read.
"And we must abolish all thing including medicare and medicaid, food stamps, Social security system. "
You need to read Frederic Bastiat. I never said you had to abolish any social programs. I basically implied that doctrinaire socialism is based on idiocy, envy and incompetence. The thing is that you can't even comprehend what competent critics explain to you.
"I think we must not have government at all. Because free market will regulated everything, and once everyone only thought for its onw benefit and take care of himself, we will be living in ever harmony that will last till the end of the world."
Idiot, I have consistently stressed that capitalism thrives under the rule of law. That isn't anarchy. You don't understand any history. Of anything.
"Also now I really believe we must also cancel the minimun wage, because that is using public power to disrupt and influence the running of free market and private business."
You should abandon delusional views of wage controls. But you won't.
"American should also abolish all taxs, because taxes including income tax and property tax are using public authority to steal money from hardworking people and give that money to the lazy ones. It is just not fair."
America, all nations, should abolish all gratuitous taxes, for sure. And you should learn to read properly before given any academic credentials that mislead you in to thinking that you're prepared to criticize economic and political systems and the parasitic ideologues that do nothing but complain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
sunnohh
19 minutes ago
"So one of the many nuances of Stalinist style communist regimes was the belief or the political lie that the country itself is great. The idea that a country is better than others is a fundamentally right wing political thought."
My goodness. You people will never learn. Stalin suggested that "Communism" under his magical leadership was "the greatest" in a zero sum race to bring "capitalists" to heal. He considered himself the vanguard leader. Marx was a racist as well, by the way. So according to you anyone with power that has a zero-sum agenda is right wing. According to you power is inherently "right wing" or something. I think you need a little island to retire to.
US Constitutionalist believe that America is "the greatest" at delivering the greatest individual liberty, which is a portable, synergistic concept. Japan and Germany, our bitter enemies during WWII, are now considered "great" to the extent that they compete honestly against us. Because we do not view life or economic competition in zero-sum terms like all of the incompetent Marxists do. Constitutionalists want to be great competitors in a synergistic game. They want to win tennis, golf, or whatever, based on the rule of law and a good faith "rules based world order." They don't want to kill their competition and take their things. They often enjoy coaching as much as direct competition. It's an adult thing you can't comprehend.
Left-wingers invented the very concept of "cosmological justice" through property seizures. Zero sum morons like you and Stalin are inherently leftist. To move to the right is to move towards liberty, small government, and teaching prosperity with a charitable heart. It's the exact opposite of you and Stalin. The difference between you and Stalin is that he had enormous power to abuse whereas you have none.
The only way that a "right winger" can take on "socialist" or zero sum policies as you suggest is, for example, the old monarchies in Europe that cling to power by increasing social programs. Those are the only "right wing" socialists. The truth is that the only "right wing" in America were the Royalists that moved to Canada.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yes, any school of thought can suggest and implement free healthcare, "
You still don't get it: Great ideas don't emerge from "schools" unless you're looking for a reason to credit the "school" for illogical reasons. Consensus on great ideas emerges from critical thinking and good faith consensus building. Socialism has its own dogmas. All "isms" are known by dogmas. The only dogma of critical thinking is that relying on unchallenged dogmas is illogical.
"...however, it is an inherently socialist idea, that is to say, it falls under the definition of socialist policy."
No, it's not inherently socialist. Socialism in history was always about people disenfranchised from the ruling class, number one, and then number two was "machines" will replace unskilled labor and therefore these power disparities need to be resolved. We have solved ALL of the original grievance of the pre-Marxist socialists here in the USA without even once alluding to socialist "school of thought."
Medicine wasn't even a respected field of science when Marx published his manifesto. You simply do NOT know what you're talking about. Socialism is inherently about "solving power disparities." You only have two choices from there: Equal application of the law (AKA "the rule of law") or equality of outcome where the altruistic ruling class appeases its constituents with wealth redistribution and related programs. The USA created the first rule of law republic. Therefore all of the socialist's grievances were solved as soon as labor law became hegemonic and citizens were all granted equal voting rights. Public schools try to bridge the gap with "equality of opportunity" programs that parasitic Marxists try to leverage and transform in to parasitic "equality of outcome" guarantees. IOW, it's a cult of "common sense" parasitism.
Free medicine demands emerged (mostly in Europe after the USA already started sending massive aid) after WWI and WWII when we already had built massive "mobilization" efforts for various "wartime" justifications.
"The US does not have free healthcare, keep denying it if you want, it does not make it any less true."
Yes it does. You can not be denied care for urgent medical needs and you can not be forced to pay if you are unable. Period. That is the law of the land and has been for decades. Your Utopian expectations will never be met. Ever. If you say that the Europeans have it right then move there and shut up. Because European socialism is still highly dependent on free market capitalism.
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
-
@hVaeh
Wrong, moron. Wrong. Look up "ism" for starters. Anyone can mistakenly accept specious dogmas as fact. Marxists, that is to say, those that follow the distinct doctrines of Marx, like his completely debunked theory of "labor," are idiots. And furthermore, if they don't recognize that he was simply a parasitic charlatan and that his propagated views represent anything other than pseudo-scientific calls to live like aggrieved parasites, they are followers of a cultural movement that is highly politicized. In fact what Marx suggested is that everything directly or indirectly related to "the economy" is "political." Therefore, anyone that follows the doctrines of Marx is following a worldview that suggests that all "property relations" issues are inherently political because of how completely the "status quo culture" convinced people to agree to the status quo property rights regimes (he didn't distinguish between "industrialized monarchies" and "exceptional" capitalist nations like the USA).
What you wrote about Marxism "not being political" is about as dumb as it gets. All of Marx's doctrines pertain to politics and unique "revisionist" views of history, also developing his own "prophecy." It's called "the political economy" by all who suggest that a nation's economic activities are unified in to one "national system." Anyone that suggests that "capitalism" represents "a system" is deceived by Marxist theories and how they view "the political economy" hence all of politics are affected by everything that is "social" including how families are organized. It's right in the Communist Manifesto, if you'd bother to read it. He even had his own term for anyone that disagreed with him. He called it "false consciousness" or "defending class interests" but both can apply. All of those doctrines are required in order to support "Class Justice" or "Social Justice" and whining about "disparity" as if, of course rich people made you "poor" (envious, ignorant and lazy). Of course income taxes. Of course progressive income taxes. Look at these "disparity" statistics!
All of that relies directly on doctrinaire Marxism.
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
-
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
-
TRUTH AND PRIVILEGE DEFENSES TO DEFAMATION
Truth and Privilege Defenses to Defamation
Defamation lawsuits are not easy to win because the plaintiff must both prove the difficult elements of his or her case and avoid the many defenses to defamation. This article discusses some of the standard defenses to defamation, including truth and privilege.
Truth is a Defense
Truth, or substantial truth, is a complete defense to a claim of defamation. The only real issue is who has the burden of proving what is true.
Although the falsity of an alleged defamatory statement must be proven by the plaintiff as a part of the defamatory statement element of the plaintiff’s case, in most states, a defendant’s contention that the statement was true is deemed to be an affirmative defense. (An affirmative defense is a defense that must be pleaded and proved by the person responding to a claim.) In Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, however, the United States Supreme Court ruled that, while truth is a defense, it is not always an affirmative defense. The court said that, where a statement by a media defendant involved a matter of “public concern,” the plaintiff had to bear the burden of proving that the statement was false. Therefore, a media defendant cannot be required to prove the truth of a statement involving a matter of public concern.
Privilege
Another complete defense to a claim of defamation is privilege. The two types of privilege are absolute privilege and qualified privilege. An absolute privilege is a privilege that always applies. A qualified privilege is a privilege that applies only if the defendant has not acted with actual malice.
There is an absolute privilege for statements made in or having some relation to judicial or judicial-like proceedings. There is an absolute privilege for statements made in legislative proceedings. There is an absolute privilege for certain government officials acting in the course of their employment, including federal officials and high-ranking state officials. There is an absolute privilege for any compelled publication or broadcast.
There is a qualified privilege for statements published in a reasonable manner for which there is a public interest (e.g., the news) or for which there is a private interest of such importance to the public that it is protected by public policy (e.g., a job reference). In essence, the news media can inaccurately report newsworthy events, especially live events and breaking news, as long as it does so without actual malice.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The root problem is the idea of "labor versus capital" and the gradual destruction of academies all over the world. The worst are "Western" academies where the pseudoscientific atheists preach "Social Darwinism" and the "inevitability" of a certain "Social Justice Arc of History". Even before WWI some European leaders were highly affected by the Democratic Party and its approach to "labor rights" where the secessionists sought revenge, reprisal and one party dominance by "speaking truth to power" with Jim Crow and "labor rights" that excluded non-whites and tried to claw "populist" power back from the Republican Party in that way. On a seemingly separate track the cultural impact of Darwinism (dogmatic belief in Evolutionary Theory) led to all kind of paranoid narratives about humans acting like animals. Additionally, Darwinism sprang forth this idea of a binary "class war" that was deniable only by people suffering from cognitive dissonance or what Richard Dawkins would later call "God Delusion". Both the British and the American academies more and more started to attack anything that defended rational uncertainty theory in the sciences. What we call Critical Theory today sprang from German immigrants in the 1930s and 1940s that were identified as "Frankfurt School" Communists that were "realistic" about the problem with the Communist Manifesto only in the sense that the "International Workers' Revolution" was not going to happen. It was just regarded as "Realistic" to "look critically" at the facts pertaining to the Communist Manifesto in the context of the Russian revolutions and Lenin's pivot once he established the first "Communist" regime in Russia. In any case, all of the criticism and so forth did nothing to debunk the insane inferences people took from Marx's nonsense at how it evolved historically. The root dogmas were defended as "facts". By the time I went to school I studied law, engineering and I had enough biology to understand Darwin's theory perfectly. When I heard about Marx I just laughed. I knew all of history since Marx debunked everything. But I noticed that weak minded people that didn't really want to work would say "Yeah, Marx is a joke." But if they needed an excuse for something or an explanation they'd use Marxist tropes in the "whataboutist" form of rhetoric. Like, yeah, but whatabout Capitalism". I thought these were unserious people. What I slowly realized is that they were serious about their confusion and inability to explore all of their faulty beliefs. By the time Obama was President I tried to explain why so many people were "triggered" by his Critical Theory tropes. That's when I realized it had infected so many people. And it's worse in Europe because of "historical" monarchy and land rights in Europe. The Europeans are the ones that needed "land reform" and so forth. But they made compromises with "historical power" and now under "Social Darwinism" they have sort of created this two tier political system of socialist Victicrats to replace the peasants and woke governing "scientific" elites that take for granted that progress always involves "selective pressures---survival of the fittest". Or as Nietzsche would say, maybe war is good for progress? It's interesting to debate the whacky theories until you realize how gaslit our students were becoming. Once the statists started promoting the promises of "AI" and "green energy" against their Henny Penny doom and gloom threats these terrified gaslit idiots started lining up with leftist regimes as the "scientists" taht were going to solve the world's political problems. They know it involves centrally planned "selective pressures" and death. Think about "Our Democratic Pandemic Response" before you attempt to debunk anything that I have written. When Fauci talks about "science" and "Progress" you have to understand why he can't cite the "science" he's referring to. Because he wants to include "selective pressures" for "progress" in all things, not just medicine. He's nihilistic about body counts and he's OK if the vaccines kill some people that would have otherwise survived because in theory mankind benefits by having (theoretically, under dogmatic "progressive" doctrines) more effective vaccines and the population getting "right sized" in the struggle to control deadly viruses can possibly help as much as free abortion clinics worldwide. All of the people that destroyed informed consent pertaining to the array of vaccines available are also the same people that rage against SCOTUS for abrogating Roe v. Wade. It's a one to one mapping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rickberglund2134 Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macktaylor7838
You're incapable?
rhetoric (n.)
early 14c., from Old French rethorique, from Latin rhetorice, from Greek rhetorike techne "art of an orator," from rhetor (genitive rhetoros) "speaker, orator, teacher of rhetoric," related to rhesis "speech," rhema "word, phrase, verb," literally "that which is spoken," from PIE *wre-tor-, from root *were- (3) "to speak" (source also of Old English word, Latin verbum, Greek eirein "to say;"
You're welcome, moron.
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
-
@damageincorporated8558 I don't care how you use it but it does not have a very specific meaning outside of any context.
ace (n.)
c. 1300, "one at dice," from Old French as "one at dice" (12c.), from Latin as "a unit, one, a whole, unity;" also the name of a small Roman coin (originally a rectangular bronze plaque weighing one pound, it eventually was reduced by depreciation to half an ounce; in imperial times it became a round coin). The Latin word also is the source of Spanish as, Italian asso, German ass, Dutch aas, Danish es. It is perhaps originally Etruscan and related to Greek heis "one" (from PIE root *sem- (1) "one, as one"), or it might have been taken directly into Latin from the Greek word.
In English, it meant the side of the die with only one mark before it meant the playing card with one pip (1530s). Because this was the lowest roll at dice, ace was used metaphorically in Middle English for "bad luck" or "something of no value;" but as the ace often is the highest playing card, the extended senses based on "excellence, good quality" arose 18c. as card-playing became popular. Ace in the hole in the figurative sense of "concealed advantage" is attested from 1904, from crooked stud-poker deals.
The meaning "outstanding pilot" dates from 1917 (technically, in World War I aviators' jargon, one who has brought down 10 enemy planes, though originally in reference to 5 shot down), from French l'ace (1915), which, according to Bruce Robertson (ed.) "Air Aces of the 1914-1918 War" was used in prewar French sporting publications for "top of the deck" boxers, cyclists, etc. The sports meaning "point scored" (1819) led to sense of "unreturnable serve" (by 1889).
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
-
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
-
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
-
@MattVasconcellos-d4k Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(27) By whom do your children cast them out?—The “children” of the Pharisees are their disciples, and in this case, such as practised exorcism, like the sons of Sceva in Acts 19:13. The belief in demoniacal possession had as its natural accompaniment the claim on the part of those who could control the disordered reason of the possessed person of power to cast out the demon. We need not assume that such power was always a pretence, or rested only on spells and incantations. Earnestness, prayer, fasting, faith—these are always mighty in intensifying the power of will, before which the frenzied soul bows in submission or yields in confidence, and these may well have been found among the better and truer Pharisees. Our Lord’s question, indeed, requires for its logical validity the admission that the “children” of the accusers did really cast out demons, and that not by Beelzebub.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williespeirs6134
LOL. How you'd determine that is anyone's guess.
"BS - it's clear the president himself hardly understood the consequences of what he was doing - the consequence was China retaliated by imposing tariffs on pork and soya beans, resulting in him having to compensate agriculture - who picks that up - the US consumer..."
Also, consistent with your logic is the premise that the entire New Deal paradigm is supported by the US taxpayer. No kidding. That's an excuse for defending the status quo? Really?
"...the only beneficiary was the US steel and alumina manufacturers..."
You have no idea how to organize coherent economic arguments. One minute you're for demagogic "dynamic scoring" and the next minute you offer proof by trope. It's actually all "proof by trope."
"The US prefers to be seen as non-interventionist in trade - that's intervention."
Wow. I have already explained it to you. The only way to understand the controversies is to map the claims to worldviews and then organize verifiable evidence. The US is "against interventionism" the same way Keynes was. "Good" interventionism is anti-interventionism, according to "altruistic" elitist interventionists. Just like "antifa" fascists are against fascism. They say. So the first order of business for serious investigators and analysts is to correctly organize the relevant data and to challenge claims not just with simply contrary data claims but to challenge the the fallacious logic of their critiques in the first place, including their language war that practically eliminates good faith exposition of their idiotic root doctrines.
Basically, the zero-sum elites think:
1) One-way, lopsided deals to help "developing economies" is "anti-interventionist" because they see material as the driving factor of "progress"
2) Since according to the same idiotic elitists, "material distribution" drives wealth and "balance", the only critical issue is putting "altruistic" elites (demagogic elitists) in charge of "distribution balancing" points of power. Therefore, interventionism that helps them take power, like deals with other elitists, is "anti-interventionist" and "good." Bad interventionism is anything that makes the brain dead morons look incompetent or that pisses off their zero-sum allies. Like denouncing and punishing Chinese slave labor is "bad" interventionism.
You don't know how to align the rhetorical claims with verifiable facts and selfish interests.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all, nobody in Russia ever had property rights under equal application of the law. This is true with most or perhaps all of Europe as well. The US Constitution is unique because of the Bill of Rights and Constitutionally framed separations of branches laterally and States versus the Federal government vertically. When you say so and so steals, it's POV. Calling Putin a kleptocrat is OK from the Western POV because of Western traditions for holding property in the age of "democracy" or "democratic rights" when the public is told that they have "rights" to hold their property under contract law and whatever. If property is theft, as earlier socialists claim, then Putin is Russia Robin Hood. This is the nature of humans that have no fear of the Ten Commandments. Worse is the European socialists, especially dogmatic Marxists, that actually hold to "Social Darwinism" that implies an Ubermensch class is needed to "liberate" the people. It is strongly implied all over the West that these tyrants, including in the USA, are following all of the socialist doctrines, including Freudian psychology, that posits an inability for all persons to reconcile "truth' without "science". According to Critical Theory Marxism, Putin is a "Liberator" but also a fascist because he turned away from Stalinist imperialism in the name of liberating the Third Estate throughout the world or "International Workers" as Marx originally described the Untermensch cannon fodder. Putin is no different than Hillary Clinton in philosophy and behavior. Hillary has never been a head of any state. So she has no military sworn to follow her. That's the essential difference between the two. Let's not play these Special Pleading games where Hitler and Putin are like special mutations and so forth. Their so called liberals under Marxist Liberation Theory. Hillary is jealous of Putin. And angry that he openly criticized her. Hillary is actually a much bigger hypocrite because Putin never said he is running a rule of law republic.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/wha/rlnks/11936.htm
Article IV
Protection and Defense
1. The United States of America and the Republic of Panama commit themselves to protect and defend the Panama Canal. Each Party shall act, in accordance with its constitutional processes, to meet the danger resulting from an armed attack or other actions which threaten the security of the Panama Canal or of ships transiting it.
2. For the duration of this Treaty, the United States of America shall have primary responsibility to protect and defend the Canal. The rights of the United States of America to station, train, and move military forces within the Republic of Panama are described in the Agreement in Implementation of this Article, signed this date. The use of areas and installations and the legal status of the armed forces of the United States of America in the Republic of Panama shall be governed by the aforesaid Agreement.
3. In order to facilitate the participation and cooperation of the armed forces of both Parties in the protection and defense of the Canal, the United States of America and the Republic of Panama shall establish a Combined Board comprised of an equal number of senior military representatives of each Party. These representatives shall be charged by their respective governments with consulting and cooperating on all matters pertaining to the protection and defense of the Canal, and with planning for actions to be taken in concert for that purpose. Such combined protection and defense arrangements shall not inhibit the identity or lines of authority of the armed forces of the United States of America or the Republic of Panama. The Combined Board shall provide for coordination and cooperation concerning such matters as:
(a) The preparation of contingency plans for the protection and defense of the Canal based upon the cooperative efforts of the armed forces of both Parties;
(b) The planning and conduct of combined military exercises; and
(c) The conduct of United States and Panamanian military operations with respect to the protection and defense of the Canal.
4. The Combined Board shall, at five-year intervals throughout the duration of this Treaty, review the resources being made available by the two Parties for the protection and defense of the Canal. Also, the Combined Board shall make appropriate recommendations to the two Governments respecting projected requirements, the efficient utilization of available resources of the two Parties, and other matters of mutual interest with respect to the protection and defense of the Canal.
5. To the extent possible consistent with its primary responsibility for the protection and defense of the Panama Canal, the United States of America will endeavor to maintain its armed forces in the Republic of Panama in normal times at a level not in excess of that of the armed forces of the United States of America in the territory of the former Canal Zone immediately prior to the entry into force of this Treaty.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@twm4259
OP:
@xxxlonewolf49
2 hours ago
Hunter was pardoned to protect Joe, it's that simple.
You:
@twm4259
2 hours ago
As noted elsewhere, it is exactly the opposite.
Me:
@indonesiaamerica7050
17 minutes ago
@twm4259 No, it's not the opposite. You're partially correct but there is risk to any action to defend yourself from legitimate criminal racketeering charges.
What confuses you? We all get it about the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
--
So, there are "double jeopardy" protections and nobody can be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal case. This is also interpreted as NOT protecting witnesses who face no risk of "testifying against himself". That's fine. But it's not a magic bullet. Threatening a Pardoned criminal like Hunter with obstruction of justice for refusing to cooperate really only carries so much weight. It's no magic bullet. I'm pretty sure it's never been done. And "prosecuting" Hunter would be presented as "persecution" for the Marxist party. They'd love it. There are no magic bullets in weaponry nor in the law. The better strategy is as I explained above. You can't just seethe over something and then come up with shortcuts to slam people with in Federal courts. The crime families have created lots of loopholes for themselves. This reminds me of the Medici Popes but that's another story entirely.
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
-
@JeffSpeen That's what the judge is supposed to do. Because he did not do that it is the judge that needs education and maybe you do as well. In law school when they discuss these kinds of problems with the judicial branch they refer you to (judicial) Political Question doctrine. Or to put it very simply, if POTUS is alleged to have broke a law or mores or whatever the Constitutional process to "check" his power is Impeachment.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The political question doctrine limits the ability of the federal courts to hear constitutional questions even where other justiciability requirements, such as standing, ripeness, and mootness, would otherwise be met.
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
-
@Maniacman2030 Man, you people are so dumb. There is nobody that actually thinks support for Israel is detrimental to US hegemony. Hence, even the warmongers are not placing Israeli interests above US interests. The actual controversy is so freaking simple. The people in the US that decry "MAGA" and "America First" think that MAGA is Nazism, which has connotations of "Social Darwinism" AKA the removal of their Affirmative Action and "Equity" programs that actually to put American Citizens last because "Equity" creates a de facto soviet-style ruling class far above teh de facto pleb class. The "upwardly mobile" class is eliminated. Whatever upward mobility there is must be in accordance with US Soviet planning. The only ones that benefit are the US Soviet ruling class. But they think this is what made America "first" in the world and their evidence would be the history of FDR's New Deal and the wars that came from it that turned us in the unchallenged superpower in the entire world, only theoretically challenged by Soviet Russia and now the CCP. This FDR cult in DC is NOT loyal to anyone or anything and regard Israel is a tiny, expendable pawn and sometimes it's useful to fortify your pawns against your top rivals. Israel was supported by Truman for entry in to the UN but the entire US State Department told him not to and that they planned to vote against. Only Truman's personal relationship with a lifelong Jewish business partner compelled him to hear the story of Israel from that man and he reconsidered. The US State Department, and especially George Marshall (US SECSTATE at that time) came unglued in Truman's Oval Office ranting at Truman about this decision. The US State Department has never followed any US President since FDR died. They are their own thing. And considering their role and their relationships with sitting Senators especially (also remember that Truman signed the Amendment to limit US Presidents to two terms) you clueless morons should have all you need to know to understand how this DC cult works. Everything I told you can be verified in the US history books and there are even video interviews of WWII and early Cold War witnesses to some of these otherwise unknown details. No America believes the are putting anyone else first. Progressives believe that America is already the premiere superpower and that the history since FDR (when we surpassed the British empire) taught them that, whatever you call this cult, this "Our Democracy" construct. that that is the only thing that keeps America at the top. For them, their critics are low IQ idiots and traitors. This is like Bill Maher lecturing MAGA like as if it's "common sense" that Trump supporters are all idiots. It's the only explanation he can accept. And I just told you why. And Maher is one of the dumbest of all because no comedian is ever forced to challenge their beliefs. Especially pot-smoking comedians that spend decades doing the same old thing with the same old stupid jokes. It's a cult operating in a space that was carved out during WWII and by the time the Cold War cooled down (Reagan) the people who had lived through that period were ready to retire if not already dead. Not enough people were around to explain how delusional Bill and Hillary Clinton were. You could say that they created US Neo-Communism. Making this about Israel or calling them "America hating" is stupid. Some of their stupidest constituents hate America because they hate everything and are very stupid anarchists that think "the phoenix rises from the ashes" and so forth. The new ruling class loves "America" in its Progressive form where it's so easy for them to manipulate the rest of the world, including their own Citizens. You are just a pawn and so is everyone else. Including Israel. And New York City still has a greater population than all of Israel. We have tech sharing deals but they don't siphon from us and we don't siphon from them. If Australia needed refills on their arms because China kept sending missiles at them we would not hesitate to send it.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Published: May 22, 2014
Testimony: In 2010, Justice Department Sought Lois Lerner’s Help to Prosecute Tax Exempt Groups Engaging in Politics
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, today requested that the Department of Justice make DOJ Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith available for a transcribed interview. The request comes after Smith’s subordinate, Director of DOJ’s Election Crimes Branch, Richard Pilger, told Committee investigators in a transcribed interview that the Justice Department met with Lois Lerner in October 2010, two and a half years earlier than previously known, to discuss potential criminal enforcement relating to political speech of nonprofit groups in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
“The Committee’s transcribed interview of Richard Pilger presents further troubling information about the Department’s contemplated prosecution of nonprofit groups for false statements,” Chairman Issa and Chairman Jordan state in the letter. “It is apparent that the Department’s leadership, including Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith, was closely involved in engaging with the IRS in wake of Citizens United and political pressure from prominent Democrats to address perceived problems with the decision.”
“According to Mr. Pilger,” the letter continues, “the Justice Department convened a meeting with former IRS official Lois Lerner in October 2010 to discuss how the IRS could assist in the criminal enforcement of campaign-finance laws against politically active nonprofits. This meeting was arranged at the direction of Public Integrity Section Chief Jack Smith.”
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
-
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
-
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
-
@dontabaltimore1974 His party divided the country when it was formed by Andrew Jackson. Obama started a new chapter not from his own actions but for what he was set up to symbolize. Especially when he picked Joe Biden for his "Progressive" Presidential ticket. Obama wanted to unite the country but, for starters, he's a sucker for Critical Theory. If he could convince everyone that as a "half race" good guy that all of this Critical Theory stuff was real and needed to be solved, then you can see how he might believe in his "transformation" agenda. But Obama, like all other Critical Theory adherents, turned out to be just as delusional as every other Marxist. Basically, he was used by his party. And his party's first choice was Hillary but Obama had a broader appeal and Hillary gave up during the party primary contest (in exchange for what, you might ask). So it's not really Obama's fault, in the beginning. I think Obama's critical mistake was going with all of his party's dogmatic policies for "health care" and then doubled down in his reelection campaign and just turned in to a pathological liar that his party is required stick with in the face of failure. It's either double down or go home. And all of their policies are based purely on theory with a long history of proven failures. He was negotiating with all of our intransigent enemies before he won and all during his first term, but they too understood his stupid party. Once he started to double down by helping Hillary hide from her CGI and "email" scandals (first of all by talking nothing but nonsense from the minute the Benghazi scandal happened) what he did was reignite the intractable divide between the party of slavery and the party that they hate for freeing their slaves. And if you think they're over it they are not. It turned in to a binary fight and his party immediately cast itself as "disenfranchised" from the time they shot Lincoln until today. It's always been a lie. So, he had his chance late in his first term and decided to throw down with Hillary the fascist. And he's been defending that faction from that time until today. So that is his role in the status quo of today. And by the way, the first high profile race baiter in the Obama epoch was Jimmy Carter who called the TEA party "racist" for opposing Obama's (socialized medicine) programs. That happened in Obama's first year in office. So I do not blame Obama personally during his Presidency except as noted. But then when the Crossfire Hurricane started getting whipped up he permitted it to happen and Comey somehow got the idea that Obama had "blessed" it. Obama made a lot of critical mistakes but he's not innately evil. He's confused and now he's just defending his "legacy" like he decided to go fully "post modern" or something. The US Democratic Party is innately evil and they divided the country long ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
He's a typical Soviet Jacobin. And he'd fit right in serving Xi's "Presidency". The Social Darwinist cult always believes it knows who is winning the "Progress Through Evolution" game. And this guy brags about X number books and 5 decades and counting as a "professor" and this he thinks creates and supports his "authority" to spew pseudoscientific lunacy. What really, really cracks me up is that, and I really did think this the first time he showed up in this cycle, that his "keys" is "scientific". Because, as I have said a long time ago, it's pretty easy to predict who will win the Oval Office, most of the time. There are not that many single term Presidents and usually the "opposition" party in the US wins after a two term President must leave. Check the history for as long as you like. But anyway, you occasionally get a case like Jimmy Carter that choked badly, in very obvious ways. OK. Now move on to his claim that Bush 43 stole the election. LMFAO. Al Gore never had a chance! A third consecutive DNC Presidential term after Clinton? Reagan won in two consecutive landslides and only because of that and what he achieved did his VP manage to win a single term, otherwise the Demons would have won in 1988. Al Gore was never going to win because of that and that Hillary did not want him to win another term. She knows as much as I do that it's normal to predict 2 terms to the left and then 2 terms to the Constitutionalists. She planned on having the Republican Party win so that she could spend a stint in the Senate and then win in 2008. That plan itself was hatched before Bill Clinton even ran for President. And Al Gore also benefited from voter fraud that got serious starting in the 1988 Presidential elections but really the plans started evolving after Reagan's second consecutive landslide. Demon Rats don't actually win the national popular vote. California alone has had many millions of fraudulent ballots since they freaked out over Reagan. There are too many rabbit trails to follow here but the point is that even Hillary and just about everyone knows that these "keys" are just "wind socks" of a sort. So my real point is that Biden should not have won. I am sure he received at least 5 million fraudulent ballots in California alone. And Trump's outrage and legal maneuvers did not deter the scumbags that organize this. But he did scare the minions that would get send to prison of caught. So now they rely on ballot dumps and forcing counts but it's rare to have the people with their hands on the election tally systems willing to run the same ballot through the process over and over again. That is the only reason Kammy came up short versus Biden. Everyone knows that they're both idiots. So Lichtman and his keys falls for all of the hype and backfills his analysis based on feelings alone that "the incumbent usually wins if A, B, C, etc. but this election was so far from normal that the only thing that mattered was how successful the ballot fraud schemes would be. And this also explains why certain polls are never correct. The leftwing polls put out "aspirational" data to send out signals as to how much cheating is needed. Only a few polls get it right. And even they compensate for the "silent Trump vote" but what they really means is that the fraudsters try to predict their cheating and the honest pollsters look at statistics and predict how far short they will fall. Yeah, leftists love to participate in polls and most others don't. But pollsters can accommodate that. The biggest factor is that nobody can predict how each "blue" county will deliver for the DNC fraudsters. This moronic professor is dumber than Nate Silver. He's like one of those boomers that took too much dope as a student and he thinks his "academic credentials" are "proof" that all of those drugs had no deleterious effect on his brain.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aa1bb2cc3dd4 People like you who make blatantly ignorant false equivalence claims with dogmatic confidence are typical of the hivemind. Do you even know what it means to be "on the left"? And by the way, I have no idea what happens if you corner a Trump voter and ask about policy. But I have heard many correctly identify the keys as (setting aside border security) tax reduction in light of "Laffer curve" theory, punitive/corrective tariffs, especially in trade with China (but also certain EU socialist regimes), third is paring back destructive regulations, and related to that, correcting all of the special Biden regime anti-energy regulations. And that I guess would include this same suite of regulations that makes it practically impossible to keep internal combustion engine manufacturing in the USA for much longer. And and all hired/promoted personnel, including judges, must be good faith Constitutionalists that are aware of the evil Progressive Marxists and their lawfare goals. That's just on the top of my head. If I had to defend Biden and Harris I would say, well, maybe the Communists are right and they're trying to shut down Capitalism in the USA so that all nations can live in peace together. Because every policy decision from them is in perfect alignment with shutting down "means of production" in the USA and Europe and ensuring China (the CCP) has the lowest production costs of any nation. And the bonus is that they can keep paying out fat bribes to just the right people. Leftists are so freaking stupid I don't even know why you bother to defend your alignment in any way, shape or form. If you want to call Trump fat or rude or whatever, nobody cares. If you want to imply that he's the one destroying our country then that makes you a certified moron. There's no equivalence in any way, shape or form with leftism in the USA and anyone that correctly identifies their evil stupidity.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@yoloswaggins6561
Again, you don't know what rights means. Our Constitution places citizens in charge of the Federal (not to mention States') legislature(s) and the President is in charge of the Federal Executive Branch, which means POTUS makes policy decision framed by the law and additionally limited by enforceable rights. You have no idea how any of that works, obviously. Your school teachers and parents have failed you, no matter what sweet words they offered to you.
Unlawful aliens have limited due process rights, which amounts only to the fact that the government must follow certain protocols before removing them. They have no right to remain here. DACA aliens are "special" (if) because they were (supposedly) minors when they arrived. Since the legislative branch did not forsee such a massive problem caused by traitors in government power around the nation there are quire a few conundrums that affect what protocols are due exactly before we remove them. None of this indicates any natural rights possessed by the DACA beneficiaries. It just gives them a temporary permit and special status to use when they petition the courts. Any judge can remove them now and forever unless the law changes or they get a favorable ruling from another judge in the interim phase. Only a judge can issue a ruling to create natural rights for them individually, on a case by case basis, that would allow them to become lawful residents of some kind. It's been that way since the beginning of nation states. That is how civilization has always worked as long as human civilization has existed. And the USA is the first (and arguably the only) nation in the world to ever to create truly enforceable natural rights paradigm. It's not that anyone else doesn't have natural rights but that they don't have any right at all to ignore our laws, including laws governing how aliens may pass our borders and stay here lawfully.
This has nothing to do with Trump. This has to do with nihilistic, lying Progressives that deliberately defrauded the nation back in the 1980s, creating an expectation that "the last amnesty ever" could be invoked whenever DemonRat politicians wanted to attack capitalism and their political opposition. And pander to people that want workers with no enforceable rights. Thus pounding wages down.
Your'e too stupid to figure anything out.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
@pookz3067
"The core of traditional Marxist thought is dialectics and Marxist theory, and Chomsky almost never uses the former and rarely the later. "
Nonsense. He has his own distinct lexicon but his dialectics involve the same Marxist- materialist analytical paradigms. He uses Critical Theory jargon and framework for the most part so that it sounds like he's applying his own distinct critical thinking but he's not.
"Neo Marxists are steeped in the postmodernist tradition, which Chomsky actively critiques."
LOL. Infighting. They're "tribalist" Neo-Marxists thanks to the likes of Dawkins.
"It’s why he doesn’t get along with famous Marxists like Zizek."
It's inherent to Critical Theory to strive chaotically to come up with the best "survival of the fittest" answers while never quite expecting to be able to fully explain why their ideas are "fittest" or "the best." Political power is the only "proof" that matters. That's where "Selfish Gene" starts and finishes.
"Even the most “moderate” Marxists at least use Marx’s critiques of capitalism as a starting point."
Those that choose to approach "disparity" from that angle do. Those that choose more oblique attacks, as in Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, all choose different starting points with all of the same assumptions. Marxists try to explain disparity and the cognitive dissonance of how incompetent people can be poor or "disenfranchised" without being personally responsible. Their victim status is taken for granted. They're victims of "the system" or "status quo institutions" and so forth. If you specifically offer evidence based criticism against something that can lead to ordinary critical thinking and constructive problem solving. If you reference paradigmatic institutions like "capitalism" or "patriarchy" or "neo colonialism" or any of that collectivist garbage you are highly affected by Critical Theory, which is basically Marxist excuses for why the international workers' revolution didn't bring about "Communism" or at least a clearly organized "dictatorship of the proletariat."
An "Anarchist" by identity that relies on all of the institutions that he critiques...wtf is that? An actual anarchist works to become independent of any form of coercive social structures. Does he do that? Are you kidding me? He also identifies as "Libertarian" while attempting to explain human sentience as a hard materialist along the lines of Richard Dawkins. The man is very confused. Putting him on a pedestal doesn't do anyone any good at all. His entire lexicon is mendacious, at best. Also, anarchists would be supportive of natural property/liberty rights, not condemning "corporations" that form under the doctrines of free will and don't break the law. Anarchists are not against other people forming their own cooperative organizations. Everything Chomsky says is all about his POV as some wannabe messiah that is attempting to explain "disparity" and "injustice" of the "demos" that don't fall in line with his incoherent doctrines.
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
-
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
-
@BigMikeRobinsonFJB 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
U.S. Code
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
This is failed analysis derived from unrealistic and improper expectations. The problem is that the rule of law in Washington was corrupted years ago. You can't just "reboot" a government and suddenly show everyone, like in some computer game, that you're tackling all of the nation's enemies and criminals. He's doing exactly what I had expected him to do. Trump has been publicly pressuring, which helps calm ignorant people, but at the same time, Trump's lack of nuanced understanding of Conastitutional rule of law has led to Sessions being jammed up by the criminal cabals and he has had to turn over the reins to a far less competent Rosenstein, for the time being. That does NOT mean that justice will not prevail under Session's leadership. The only real "points" being scored that matter is that the criminals are getting away with leaks. Only a few arrests but that it getting better too. The problem is that you don't know what to expect and you don't know how long criminal investigations take if you actually plan on prosecuting people. If you politicize it and drag it all out in the public before you get your prosecution agenda organized you might become more popular politically but you make it very easy for the accused to ultimately avoid prosecution. That is why in Washington the big cases usually end up as "scandals" where some small fish is the only one ever prosecuted. Sessions is maybe the first US AG in history that is attempting to bring them all to justice without demagogic compromises.
The bottom line is that Mueller's damage has been done. Mueller helped fuel "the resistance" for Trump's first year. If that was his goal then he really didn't accomplish much. The tide is turning already. The actual controversies, the true "risks" for long term success or failure, will be quantified when we see how all of this bullshit affects the midterm elections. That is what matters. If the Republicans get more serious rule of law candidates and get rid of the traitors without bringing more Democrats, that will be huge. And that will determine the success of Trump's agenda. But actually, the most important thing Trump must do is restore SCOTUS and so far he's one for one on that.
Things only seem bad because corporate media and the criminal Democrats are screaming louder than ever. But they're losing. They only "win" if they fool enough voters again.
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
-
@P L LII Wex Administrative Procedure Act
Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law. The APA is codified in 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559.
The core pieces of the act establish how federal administrative agencies make rules and how they adjudicate administrative litigation. 5 U.S.C. § 551(5)–(7) clarifies that rulemaking is the “agency process for formulating, amending, and repealing a rule,” and adjudication is the final disposition of an agency matter other than rulemaking. That is, rulemaking goes beyond resolution of specific controversies between parties and includes management and administrative functions. Rulemaking and adjudication can be formal or informal, which in turn determines which APA procedural requirements apply. The APA applies to the different types of administrative actions as follows:
Formal Rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 556, and 557 govern formal rulemaking.
Informal Rulemaking. 5 U.S.C. § 553 governs informal rulemaking.
Formal Adjudication. 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556, and 557 govern formal adjudication.
Informal Adjudication. The APA does not establish procedural requirements for informal administrative adjudication, but the Due Process Clause of the constitution, the specific agency’s regulations, or other statutes may create procedural protections.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jack_Frozt That's a hivemind comment. Look, what has happened is that Marxists and Critical Theory or "democratic" Marxists around the world are collaborating on a lot of projects that posit the demise of Westphalian sovereignty, a working class that can vote on rules of their "democracy", flattening of disparity be showing the ruling class as benevolent, altruistic (and not at all about eugenics and genocide) scientists, and all of the programs that lead in theory to the consolidation of "means of production" under control of this global ruling class. Working your way up on merit is racist in the sense that it must be eliminated in order to create Utopian Communism. And check your history books about what Marxists do when they take power through violence. The genocide starts during the power struggle and never abates.
What Americans want can't be answered with simplistic tropes. It's delusional to make a comment like yours, especially when you completely gloss over who is pulling the strings and why. A lot of Americans are groomed to worship hedonism. Some desperate hedonists imagine getting a "Dot Com" job that grants them shares and lets them retire two years later as a billionaire just from the luck of "life's lottery". They're freaking cultivated idiots. And also, the Americans that do yearn to make money on YouTube and Twitter love the idea of collecting a salary from Google or from Elon Musk on the way to becoming billionaire "influencers". And yet the reality is that if we don't restore rule of law meritocracy within, I would say 12 months, these aholes will just start voting for the lying Marxists again for the next midterms and until the world blows itself up. We didn't just dodge a bullet. Harris is a tool of the genocidal Marxists. And yes, she is so stupid that she has no idea what she's actually arguing for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TBH even this video doesn't quite explain how absurd this situation is. Every informed person knew from before the 2020 elections that any reduction in US oil production, anything that affects any energy pricing (like forcing a premature shift to pure-electric-powered vehicles, would have a direct negative impact on costs at every level of "economic" activity. Just about every activity is negatively affected by costs. It's like a hidden "VAT" (value added tax) because costs go up at every layer that "value" is added. For them to double down on claiming that spending (wealth redistribution) reduces inflation is the biggest lie of human history. Sometimes they try to say "lower costs" (selectively, through cost shifting) so that people think they have a serious plan. They don't. And you know how inherently mendacious they all are because they doubled down with a bill called the Inflation Reduction Act that everyone knew (based on all of history and every sane economic model) would only make everything worse. They want to make it worse. And TBH, the "end game" only hits "pay day" (their goals) after many generations. Generations told to worship abortion and so forth. These schemes only make sense after population culls. This is a fact. That doesn't mean they actually go out and try to kill masses of people (not in America, not yet) but what it does mean is that, no, they don't want to solve the problem with people crossing the border carrying fentanyl and diseases. They're not, technically, mass murderers. Not yet. Their allies are, technically, mass murderers. They're not on the side of good and the best legal defense they can come up with is innocent by reason of mental defect. All of these "caveats" (and special Communist projects) were discussed back when I was in school. The only "new" thing since then is the WWW and all of the "Artificial Intelligence" lies propagated. All of these other factors have been known since long before I was even born. FDR was warned about these problems when the massive Administrative "Brain Trust" state (what some people call the Military Industrial Complex is really a creation of FDR, his "Brain Trusts" and their corporate allies in "Industry") was created. The people that occupy those unelected offices in DC simply get crazier with each new administration.
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
-
@AuroraColoradoUSA EARLY HISTORY OF THE TERM "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" Keenan D. Kmiec
A. In Search of the Earliest Use
The idea of judicial activism has been around far longer than the
term. 3 Before the twentieth century, legal scholars squared off over the
concept of judicial legislation, that is, judges making positive law.
"Where Blackstone favored judicial legislation as the strongest
characteristic of the common law, Bentham regarded this as an usurpation
of the legislative function and a charade or 'miserable sophistry."
Bentham, in turn, taught John Austin, who rejected Bentham's view and defended a form of judicial legislation in his famous lectures on jurisprudence.' In the first half of the twentieth century, a flood of scholarship discussed the merits of judicial legislation, and prominent scholars took positions on either side of the debate.
Criticism of constitutional judicial legislation was particularly vehement during the Lochner era. Critics assailed the Court's preference for business interests as it repeatedly struck down social legislation in the name of substantive Due Process. While some modem scholars consider
Lochner and its progeny virtually synonymous with "judicial activism,"
the term is conspicuously absent from contemporaneous criticism. The
New Deal and the "revolution" of 1937 ushered in another spate of critical
commentary, but again, contemporaneous literature does not mention "judicial activism" by name. Years later, after the justices agreed that the New Deal was on firm constitutional ground, the term finally surfaced in legal discourse.
1
-
1
-
I chuckled the first time I heard the "TDS" trope. The thing is that it truly is a syndrome. It's caused by the Critical Theory and PC psyops cult. I laughed because it truly has nothing to do with Trump personally other than the fact that, in a nutshell, the Clintons planned their 4 years in office before they won Bill's first term. That's just a fact. And even if you don't accept it you should accept the fact that Hillary as "FLOTUS" was given a bigger portfolio than any of other FLOTUS since Eleanor Roosevelt. And she didn't hide the fact that she wanted to be the first female POTUS. But Bill Clinton is not quite as stupid as he seems to be. He's stupid alright but he understands the basics of electoral politics. Looking back, the last time a single party kept the White House for 4 straight terms was FDR and Truman finished FDR's fourth and then took another before Ike ran as a Republican to replace Truman after Truman signed the Amendment outlawing more than 2 terms. Reagan won two terms in a landslide and then his VP won a single term before Bill replaced him. Therefore Bill himself went in knowing that if Hillary were to win the White House she would have to have a long term strategy. That is why Bill did not want Gore to win. That would have put off Hillary's scheme even further. They wanted the Republican Party to win 1 or 2 terms and then when the time was right they would run Hillary after she spent a stint in the Senate. All went OK, as expected, until Obama showed up. And as we all know, Obama won. But this DNC cult is really not about any single person as elected leader. It can't survive longer than 2 terms if taht is what the cult is all about. So Obama was seen as a "Magic Negro" (look it up) Social Justice harbinger. And that pushed Hillary's plans back. But Hillary is stupid and impatient. She stopped worrying about the general trend of having the Oval Office swap parties pretty steadily after each President terms out. She negotiated the US SECSTATE gig and kept up her fascist/corporatism CGI grift. Going back to Obama, he alluded to a lot of Critical Theory tropes while in office and the "broken eggs" (see Stalin's omelet trope) didn't bother him. But as a harbinger he deluded his entire cult in to thinking that they had reached certain prophesied milestones. For Hillary to lose destroyed their "Arc of Social Justice History" and because a caricatured "Fat Cat Capitalist" beat her, he completely destroyed this cult's confidence in pretty much everything that they try to determine and predicted using "Social Sciences". And this drove them insane because, well, they had already driven themselves insane since the Cold War and Clinton's pivot to building up the CCP as a "developing nation" like any other. TDS is not about Trump per se. It's about a cult of abject idiots taht simply can't believe that Fat Cat Oligarchs can come in and steal what they think is rightfully theirs. They think the age of single party "socialism" or "democratic" Communism had already arrived with Obama. Instead of understanding the euphoria over Obama as simple proof that the electorate was not really innately racist they spun it every which way possible to regard themselves as geniuses with the right to rule forever under Our Single Party Socialist Democracy. And Trump very clearly and loudly not just beat them but his rhetoric is even more brutal than mine is. But also, look back at some of the Critical Theory rubrics that have been around for decades. Maslow's Hierarchy is where insane nutjobs get their virtue signaling doctrines from. If you show how triggered you are, you show how needy you are. That's how this cult protects criminals and also shows activists how to show they are on the "right side of history". So when people went insane over Trump's first victory and the riots started I already had all of this in mind and for me it was SOP for the left. Occupy Wall Street was the sign for me that Obama was seen by many as a Social Justice harbinger and they thought he age of universal basic income and free medical insurance for all had arrived. Think of how Trump trashed Obama's programs. Because everyone woke really does turn to shit. Everything dogmatic socialists touch turns to shit. In short, TDS is totally real even according to Critical Theory. The woke psychologists just have to come up with a different name.
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If TikTok is a threat to national security then every app that has the same access to Citizen's data is also a threat to national security. And I do believe TikTok is a threat to every nation at the hands of Communists and their absurd cultural Marxist "fellow travelers". The problem is that already under Bill Clinton DC was "rethinking" how to "govern the Internet" and, basically, the entire Bill of Rights (we can talk about Hillary's BS UN activism, not to mention CGI). By the time the Global War on Terror took shape everyone in DC went along with all of this hidden data aggregation so that "Intelligence Community" could keep track of "Terror Threats". But even before Obama ran for President I heard academics and their "actually" narratives where they began to spin these "root cause" stories that to first to "Intersectionalism" and then to "Capitalism". You're not a "Terrorist" if you insult Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, or the Administrative State in general. Now you understand "Insurrection" theater to advance this neo-Manichean, neo-Gnostic (or Woke Manicheism) atheistic religion and it's binary "two class" Marxist worldview. With respect to TikTok itself, the reason they are so highly protected is because the DC "intelligence community" is not anticommunist. They're antifreedom, like all Communists are. They're essentially a Communist regime in the USA. TikTok is a special case, but not the only one to be dealt with. Google itself is equally dangerous and actually they're trying to displace TikTok with short videos and I'm sure that at some point they want to launch a special Android app for short videos just as they have with other niche AV players. And to operate in China you must comply with Chinese National Security Law. So, every corporation with a "web play" (or "apps") can have their collected data tapped by the CCP. Hawley is right but I assume he doesn't have the time to speak in the Senate to go deep in what I have laid out here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vonnano3561 Banning TikTok for its egregious violations sets a precedent for a safer world. Period. It does not make government bigger. It actually makes it smaller because the alternative to cutting off unlawful fraud is "democratizing" is the way that the banks and corporate media in general have been coopted by US and foreign "big government" Communists. This trend itself can be dated all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, and his landmark Antitrust action, and then his insane Marxist cousin that "democratized" everything and created what people now refer to ignorantly as "the Deep State" whereas before it was "The Military Industrial Complex" all created by The New Deal and ancillary programs like Arsenal of Democracy and The Marshall Plan. Instead of outlawing espionage the "Intelligence Community" only cares about getting in on the action. That's big government for you. And installing the app itself is not at all a problem. It must be banned because those installing it don't even know what risks they're talking. And instead of having unintelligible gibberish like Google does, TikTok flat out lies about what is done with the data. So, informed consent is destroyed by allowing this. It's straight up fraud and every "certified app" from Apple and Google should be banned when they publish apps that violate our Citizen's rights. That's not big government. That's effective government and with respect to the status quo it is actually a shrinking of the Administrative or "regulatory" state that is basically 90% of what people call The Deep State. I'm so far out in front of Rand Paul I've been talking about this since before he even ran for his Senate seat. This really started happening when DC beuracrats interpreted Bush's "You're either with us or with the terrorists" and China claimed they were in on the Global War on Terror. And they were but they have always been on the wrong side. DC cultists cut them in, informally, as "national security partners". Did it not shock you when Generally Milley was proud to tell the story about how he went behind Trump's back to warn the CCP military that he would monitor and report any action against China ordered by Trump? This is what I'm talking about. Trump was probably the only one caught off guard by this. They think this is Social Justice. It's Big State to claim that Communists have "First Amendment Rights" to defraud US users to build massive databases on the movement of everyone, including State and Federal employees, their family members, router passwords cached in their "private" apps, and therefore everything they need to stealthily steal access to everything as each onion layer is peeled. These are the same people that have no problem with Hillary's illegal server but Trump is the problem because he kept his own Presidential documents in accordance with "the law of Presidents".
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
-
1
-
@Iamnobodynow OK, so 3 words and 3 clear definitions. I told you that terrorism is in the legal system a "special condition" that means that certain kind of crimes are treated differently if it's categorized as terrorism versus, say, just ordinary drug running. And by the way, lots of overtly "terrorist" or "nonstate combatant" organizations also raise cash in the transnational drug trade. Terrorist originally referred to the French Jacobin (left wing) regime when they told the public that they would enforce the new regime's power with a "reign of terror" to quell resistance. Now people are labeled as terrorists to separate the from nation-states that go to war and have diplomats ready to resolve the war in accordance with so-called "international law" and so forth which most of the time refers to UN treaties or any other previous document that they want to use to sort of protect the legitimacy of their violence and cast it as "resistance" rather than illegal violence that is also regarded as "warfare" as opposed to civil violence or crime handled with "police" rather than the military. Antisemitism is the conflation of Jewish identity (self identified or as identified by a given antisemite) with some kind of Darwinist genetic/racialist trope. Whataboutism is, from the non Marxist point of view, when Marxists respond to complaints about Communist behaviors and they flip the story by saying "whatabout..." Like, take Trump. People will say, gee, Biden is taking millions for his family and shutting down fossil fuels. Every single policy benefits Communist China and they are the main paymasters. (And therefore) he is a corrupt traitor. The Communists will say, yeah but "whatabout" Trump? He's totally corrupt. And allude to the Marxist view of "Capitalists". So by making this false equivalence they're actually suggesting that a President who takes bribes from a Communist regime is OK and not corrupt but a President that has expensive condominiums and other properties and goes against the Communist Arc of History is "the real criminal" all based on the original socialist dogma of "property is theft". Your whataboutist tropes mentioned false dilemmas as though helping "demand side" addicts to stop looking for Chinese narcotics that also fund terror operations can only happen if taht is the only thing we do. We can do that OR fight the cartels and destroy them along with sealing the border. So, we're "hypocrites" by suggesting that we "get tough" on the border while anyone in the USA is still willing to buy this fraudulent poison that is dressed up like ordinary pain pills. And the whataboutists also call us "the real terrorists" because look how "terrible" this Capitalism and "plutocracy" is and we have no right to preach about "democracy". And it is true that we have too many hypocrites in power in the USA. And they are all Critical Theory Marxists. Some (or even most) Critical Theory Marxists don't recognize that all of their policy preferences come verbatim from the Communist Manifesto.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@keithziegler8881 Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?
The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
1
-
@keithziegler8881 Second excerpt: Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
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
-
'...was that comment directed towards me? If so, that didn't make any logical sense.'
Did you refer to anyone as a traitor just for defending enforceable speech/expression rights? The OP did. However, you did come pretty close. I didn't call you a traitor because you didn't use that language. However, your analysis is almost as flawed as the OP's.
Did you write this?
"@Six
Yeah the British flag is part of history tooooo, wonder why no one fly's that flag? Own IT! the flag is racially motivated it's not about preserving history. History is preserved in BOOKS and MUSEUMS, not hanging off the front porch crying about birth rates. These same people have the nerve to get mad at someone taking a knee when the National Anthem is played. Hello the rebels were against America as a whole, they were against what our great country is today. They were fucking traitors, and you want to stand behind that shit? It is the "UNITED STATES" that's what makes us great. If you want to glorify a time when we were divided, why don't you divide your ass from "MY" country. Yeah the one I actually fought for, you fake ass patriot! There is a big difference between remembering history and glorifying it. General Lee didn't want statues of members of the confederate army. He also said put the rebel flag up and never take it back out because it would be a sign of treason! You talk about preserving history, but it takes a "BLACK" man to tell you about "YOUR" history you and many people conveniently ignore! Go back and study your history, it's 2018 this information is out there."
Yeah, a lot of people in America fly the British flag(s). WTF are you talking about? The only problem is replacing the US flag with another, disparaging it openly, or flying an enemy flag during a time of war.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikew764 Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
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
-
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