Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. The choir reciting the words presented to the public by MSM print media on its last days of being socially relevant.
  3. Yeah, 'ol string winder has NO CLUE what his handlers and manipulators have done to him and his ILK. He just re re re re re repeats what they shove up his ASS and he thinks he is "smarter" than everyone else. I find it quite AMUSING that these schitstains are sooooo goddamn fast to bend over and let their SOCIALISTS MANIPULATORS take ALL their freedom away and "give them free schit" in return. I really never thought I would see the day that FREEDOM would be destroyed by "free schit" and SOCIALISM.
  4. She has more than enuf. She will hold a vote when they open the impeachment hearings or perhaps before. I think we all know the vote for an inquiry isn't necessary. I have never heard of committees only having hearings after the full house has voted on it.
  5. You are a DIXIE-CRAT! That explains everything about you!
  6. She's NOT. When the Dhumocraps get to do ALL the questioning BEHIND CLOSED DOORS and you get "Reports" from your goddamn MANIPULATORS- aka "News"- then you got nothing but MORE LIES BEING TOLD than you can imagine. READ THE 4th. 5th, and 6th AMENDMENTS to the CONSTITUTION there SCHITSTAIN!!! An ACCUSED has the RIGHT TO CONFRONT THEIR ACCUSER(s)!! Piglosi won't OPEN THAT DOOR, YOU have nothing but a "hearsay witness" of which NO "testimony" is going to be asked of, and that pretty much DERAILS your entire "impeachment" BULLSCHIT!!! Do you REALLY think you got something here OTHER than a Kabuki Theater going to keep your goddamn SCHITSTAINS ENTERTAINED??? Yeah, you really ARE this FUC'KING DUMB to think otherwise!!!
  7. YOu are the one claiming her nephew was the victim's son. I've read the story; obviously you have not.
  8. kmows h it is you wpo are in denial. trump flipped out big time this afternoon and went berserk in a meeting the des walked out on him he was so out of control. you may whistle past the graveyard but trump knows he got caught and must be held accountable . the evidence is overwhelming and everyone is talking. rude giuli is going to be indicted by the same office he ran. and rude will be indicted for doing trumps filthy work. and dumbasss ex cops like you claim there is nothnig there. go sell out Russia , we won't allow you to sell us out.
  9. Our security is fine. Do you not feel secure? Do you think Russian invasion is imminent? Meanwhile China actually bought the NBA and bought Hollywood and you are worried about Russian Facebook trolling.
  10. No neither one of us work for you, you want to disprove it do it yourself. Seems if it was in numerous places it must be true, it's you that doesn't like the outcome.
  11. Not at all; unlike yours, my relationship with reality is quite solidly rooted. Your grade school taunts notwithstanding.
  12. Trump’s attorney-general investigates the investigators Barr searches for evidence of a conspiracy against the president in the Russian probe “This is an investigation that has attributes of a political purge aimed at creating a counterfactual narrative to undermine, for political reasons, the legitimacy of a counter-intelligence investigation,” said David Laufman, a partner at Wiggin and Dana who helped oversee the early stages of the Russia investigation at the justice department. " https://www.ft.com/content/b441453a-eb5e-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55
  13. Right we should throw an officer of the law in jail. In my world you pull a gun on an officer of the law you get shot I don't give a SH.IT what color you are and that's what this is all about, just one more stupid GD racist story.
  14. Talk about hogwash!! There is no evidence of your claims. Period. Koresh was a religious outlier and an extremist. Under the Constitution, such is not a crime; much less one deserving of execution.
  15. group think mob rule is afraid of self evident results that function without a word necessary to misdirect people adapting at the same time as living representatives of ancestral progression so far.
  16. https://fee.org/articles/do-we-really-consent-to-be-governed/?fbclid=IwAR055-7gTYqJs-WQ1X67UyjS7liDq93PDjgZEuniTLfC0TY40Ucr4cxD0V4 Do We Really Consent to Be Governed? Grudging, prudential acquiescence, however, is not the same thing as consent, especially when the people acquiesce, as I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation. Thursday, November 30, 2017 Robert Higgs What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” Political legitimacy presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization. When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes. Political Legitimacy One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take—verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization. I raise this question because in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends. Consent of the Governed Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of “consent of the governed” in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal. I, the party of the first part (“the ruler”), promise: (1) To stipulate how much of your money you will hand over to me, as well as how, when, and where the transfer will be made. You will have no effective say in the matter, aside from pleading for my mercy, and if you should fail to comply, my agents will punish you with fines, imprisonment, and (in the event of your persistent resistance) death. (2) To make thousands upon thousands of rules for you to obey without question, again on pain of punishment by my agents. You will have no effective say in determining the content of these rules, which will be so numerous, complex, and in many cases beyond comprehension that no human being could conceivably know about more than a handful of them, much less their specific character, yet if you should fail to comply with any of them, I will feel free to punish you to the extent of a law made by me and my confederates. (3) To provide for your use, on terms stipulated by me and my agents, so-called public goods and services. Although you may actually place some value on a few of these goods and services, most will have little or no value to you, and some you will find utterly abhorrent, and in no event will you as an individual have any effective say over the goods and services I provide, notwithstanding any economist’s cock-and-bull story to the effect that you “demand” all this stuff and value it at whatever amount of money I choose to expend for its provision. (4) In the event of a dispute between us, judges beholden to me for their appointment and salaries will decide how to settle the dispute. You can expect to lose in these settlements if your case is heard at all. In exchange for the foregoing government “benefits,” you, the party of the second part (“the subject”), promise: (5) To shut up, make no waves, obey all orders issued by the ruler and his agents, kowtow to them as if they were important, honorable people, and when they say “jump,” ask only “how high?” Such a deal! Can we really imagine that any sane person would consent to it? Social Contracts and Unicorns Yet the foregoing description of the true social contract into which individuals are said to have entered is much too abstract to capture the raw realities of being governed. In enumerating the actual details, no one has ever surpassed Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who wrote: Nowadays, of course, we would have to supplement Proudhon’s admirably precise account by noting that our being governed also entails our being electronically monitored, tracked by orbiting satellites, tased more or less at random, and invaded in our premises by SWAT teams of police, often under the pretext of their overriding our natural right to decide what substances we will ingest, inject, or inhale into what used to be known as “our own bodies.” So, to return to the question of political legitimacy as determined by the consent of the governed, it appears upon sober reflection that the whole idea is as fanciful as the unicorn. No one in his right mind, save perhaps an incurable masochist, would voluntarily consent to be treated as governments actually treat their subjects. Nevertheless, very few of us in this country at present are actively engaged in armed rebellion against our rulers. And it is precisely this absence of outright violent revolt that, strange to say, some commentators take as evidence of our consent to the outrageous manner in which the government treats us. Grudging, prudential acquiescence, however, is not the same thing as consent, especially when the people acquiesce, as I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation. For the record, I can state in complete candor that I do not approve of the manner in which I am being treated by the liars, thieves, and murderers who style themselves the Government of the United States of America or by those who constitute the tyrannical pyramid of state, local, and hybrid governments with which this country is massively infested. My sincere wish is that all of these individuals would, for once in their lives, do the honorable thing. In this regard, I suggest that they resign their positions immediately and seek honest employment. Addendum one: “Love it or leave it”: Whenever I write along the foregoing lines, I always receive messages from Neanderthals who, imagining that I “hate America,” demand that I get the hell out of this country and go back to wherever I came from. Such reactions evince not only bad manners, but a fundamental misunderstanding of my grievance. I most emphatically do not hate America. I was not born in some foreign despotism, but in a domestic one known as Oklahoma, which I understand to be the very heart and soul of this country so far as culture and refinement are concerned. I yield to no one in my affection for the Statue of Liberty, the Rocky Mountains, and the amber waves of grain, not to mention the celebrated jumping frog of Calaveras County. So when I am invited to get out of the country, I feel like someone living in a town taken over by the James Gang who has been told that if he doesn’t like being robbed and bullied by uninvited thugs, he should move to another town. To me, it seems much more fitting that the criminals get out. Second addendum: The foregoing (along with a few ill-considered sentences that I have now deleted) was first posted by The Beacon blog in June 2010. I stand by it except for the small revisions just mentioned. However, ultimately, in recognition of the zero probability that the U.S. government would ever treat me decently and would almost certainly only demand greater abasement from me over time, I emigrated from the USA in October 2015. I did not go to a free country; no such country exists. But I did escape some of the more menacing and humiliating aspects of life under the U.S. government as well as the state and local tyrannies that hold the American people hostage. Reprinted from Independent Institute.
  17. why? Why not let Adam Schiff keep interviewing witnesses on the record behind closed doors so that the White House can't upstage anyone? Nancy HAS the votes... and she will wait to take that vote until the wave of public support has really swollen.
  18. Even Trump knows he deserves to get impeached.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...