Little follow up to my post from two days ago: after discussing what is brave and so forth, got into a similar debate about what are rights. It was rather heated for a while and I think I’ve identified why: I thought after a while that we were talking past each other because I realized I hadn’t pointed out that with rights come responsibilities…and that’s when it all really fell apart and I found out that lots of people don’t even have a mental conception of responsibilities. And, guys, this was me arguing with the Right. The Left never even showed up.
To nutshell it, I pointed out that we are under no obligation to allow bad and/or insane people to occupy the public square. That among the rights we as citizens hold is the right to a peaceful, polite, orderly society so that we may conduct our lawful business without let or hindrance. This caused the explosion – one guy considering me a fascist over it. The bottom line is that those opposing me do not believe that we have a right to decency and neither do people have a responsibility to be decent. Sure, they conceded that someone causing direct harm could be arrested…but only in very narrow circumstances and if I didn’t like the way things we, too bad: we can only be free if lousy people are allowed to be lousy.
This shows how far the rot has gone – first that people believe a bum or a gangster is someone exercising freedom rather than representing the mentality of a slave. Secondly that decent people have to put up with the lousy…that if we don’t do that, we can’t be free. The truth, of course, is that if you don’t have an orderly, polite society you can’t be free…because a disordered, rude society is swiftly run by the most barbaric among us and barbarians do not respect the rights of anyone. This is why we have people waltzing into stores and just swiping everything. You can say the changes to the law caused it and I’d agree that it was a proximate cause of the event, but the bottom line is that you and I – even if absolutely assured we wouldn’t get prosecuted – simply would not go and steal stuff. We know its wrong and we don’t have a right to take what belongs to others. Barbarians don’t know its wrong and figure anything they can grab is theirs by right.
And how are we supposed to survive like that? The answer is that we can’t. It is already starting to fall apart (and the suburban people who figure they can just shop on line are gonna love it when their Amazon delivery trucks start to get hijacked in droves). Eventually those who produce or who have goods to sell will retreat behind walls and only allow select people in…and they’ll only produce in small amounts for fear that goods available for sale are also readily available for theft. Shortages, lack of access, rising prices are going to come unless this is stopped.
And they way you stop a barbarian is to hit him. Very hard. So that it hurts a lot. And you keep hitting him until he stops. It is the only way. It isn’t fascist; not even akin to fascism. It is saving civilization and thus freedom.
So, Hunter had his plea deal and the judge tossed it because it absurdly granted Hunter immunity from future charges…in case anyone following up on his actions found even more crimes (spoiler: there are more crimes. A lot more crimes). So, he plead guilty. Now, don’t get your hopes up: Team Pudding Brain isn’t going to allow Joe’s spawn to go to jail and they will want all possible charges wrapped up before election day, 2024, for fear that if a GOPer – or even a hostile or indifferent Democrat – gets in for 2025 the jig will be up. Rely on it that they are already working on a modified slap on the wrist. And the Biden’s are too arrogant to understand that the way out – the way to make this all go away – is for Hunter to see the inside of a jail cell. Say a 3 year rap, out in 18 months. Be good for Hunter: his best chance to get clean before he overdoses. It would still be a wrist slap, but everyone is going to figure “at least he went to jail” and stop looking into it. The hope is the nitwits keep screwing it up and a GOP President gets to have his team look into it.
DeSantis said something mildly approving of RFK (who is a nut) and the world went mad – and mostly is was DeSantis supporters who went mad. They’re busy writing his political obituary over it. But I do detect something: some RDS supporters clearly only backed RDS as the non-Trump without much hope he’d actually win the nomination and thus provide these people with an excuse to vote Biden in 2024. As for me: it wasn’t that bad and RDS has plenty of time to repair whatever damage was done. What I’ve been advising people is to not get committed to any particular candidate too early. The Trumpsters and the DeSantis-stans are both making the mistake of getting too deeply invested when the first primary is still months away (though I suspect DNC pot-stirring is playing a role here). I’ve committed to vote for the GOP nominee – of late I’m not even saying who I prefer. Any GOPer is the moral and intellectual superior of every Democrat.
In line with that, do you feel the shift? After the 2022 midterms I think most of us expected rather resounding defeat in 2024. I sure did. But Dobbs fades and Pudding Brain’s utter nastiness comes ever more to the fore. I think people are disgusted with him. A lot. Sure, Trump has his negatives – and rely on it that if RDS or someone else gets it, their negatives will be driven sky high by the MSM – but Trump didn’t abandon a grandchild. Isn’t talking about “gender affirming care” for minors as if the very concept weren’t an abomination. Without getting too deep here, for the first time in a while I do think we can win next year. Steep hill to climb. We still have to win outside the margin of fraud (which will be a lot lower than in 2020), but I think we can do it. Stay tuned.
Blogs For Victory 
I think the geo-political relocation we’ve been seeing the last few years is going to accelerate, as more and more decent people leave areas where crime is allowed to run rampant and relocate to rural areas that are relatively crime free.
It’s either this or people in the bigger cities pull their heads out of their donkeys and start to take voting seriously, instead of just automatically voting Dem.
The level of fraud in large metro areas controlled by Democrats is so widespread that I doubt votes against them will be allowed to count. One cycle maybe, and then the fix will be adjusted.
Sadly, you are probably right.
It would be very difficult but I do think the GOP should move into the cities…even if we can’t win the cities, we might start eating into Democrat State-wide margins. Also, just being there will start to expose the fraud; my bet is that in the deepest Blue urban areas the reported vote totals bear no relation to actual votes cast. The only exception to this would be upper class areas…but the poor folks ain’t voting. Why would they? That takes effort and civic engagement and unless someone is paying them to vote the cheetos on the couch will command their attention. Not that payment doesn’t occur – but it occurs mostly when a Blue city is crucial to State-wide election victory. IOW, when it is just a city election, nobody is going to shell out cash to get someone to vote in a foregone conclusion. We start campaigning there and showing up to vote…and the fraud will be exposed simply because for the first time in decades someone not a Democrat is there.
No one can convince me that inner city elections are free and fair. I refuse to believe that Americans are that stupid. How in the world can anyone with at least two brain cells continue to vote for Democrats in San Francisco and Chicago? Democrats have literally destroyed those two cities. I just don’t believe it.
It is a fair question:
You and I decide who is a lunatic and who is a criminal – via our legislative bodies.
If you try to tell me you aren’t sure what is insane or what is criminal – then we’ve nothing left to discuss. You know what is insane. You know what is criminal. You know what is inappropriate behavior in public.
It isn’t speech we’re going after – anyone can say whatever they want. Advocate for the most insane, anti-human policies imaginable. It is when people do things that the problem comes in. You can say you want it to be legal for people to defecate in the streets. You can form a political action committee to try to get the people to back your proposal. If by some bizarre chance you convince a majority to go along with it – fine; it is what it is. But there is no right to defecate in the streets. Or pitch a tent on the sidewalk. Or otherwise block public thoroughfares. Or paint graffiti on the walls. Or be intoxicated in public. Or be egregiously unwashed in public. Or flash sexual organs in public. These are actions and therefore not covered under 1A – the Supreme Court got it wrong when it said actions are speech. They aren’t. They’re actions. Speech is speech – what is said and what is written. And, once again, you can advocate for any of the things I listed. If you convince a majority to legalize them, congratulations. But no more of this drivel that being garbage is public is a right – it may be a privilege a people assign because they’ve prudentially judged it worth it…but it is not a right.
The right to keep and bear arms is individual and includes any weapon a human being may potentially arm themselves with. No, it doesn’t include crewed weapons as anything which takes more than one person to do cannot possibly be a right. But any weapon that a person can in theory operate on their own is an arm and the right to keep and bear it shall not be infringed.
Unless you’re a raving nutter or a criminal. Once again: you and I will decide who is a raving nutter and who is a criminal and we’ll enact laws defining those two things.
It is called self government – and we have let it atrophy while waiting on the Court to tell us what to do. It isn’t supposed to be like that: if the power over a thing is not explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the federal government then it is not a federal issue. I find no provision in there which says the federal government has power over local vagrancy laws, for instance. Any law violating the enumerated rights – fairly broadly applied – is of course unconstitutional and null and void…but a law saying you can’t defecate in the streets cannot possibly violate the Constitution.
Up in the mountains of Montana for vacation so I am a little checked out but I did notice the judge rejected Hunters plea deal which was quite the pleasant surprise. I do think the tides are turning and leftist agenda is collapsing, and I will continue to pray for that up here in God’s country.
I thought the DeSantis comments about RFK were great. He didn’t trash the guy—he was very careful to phrase his criticism purely on political philosophy, and this is the direction every potential candidate should be going. Then he said something I thought was pretty funny—a president could “sic” Kennedy on the CDC.
(He didn’t say he would.)
This is what has hair on fire in the anti-DeSantis world: “There’s a whole host of other things that he’d probably be out of step with,” he explained, “So, on that regard, it’s like, okay, if you’re president, sic him on the FDA, if he’d be willing to serve, or sic him on CDC.”
And just look at how this has been blown up! I’ve seen quotes from sources like the HuffPost that he said he planned to appoint Kennedy to the FDA or CDC.
This country needs to get a grip on its hysteria. The Leftist sites put out such total garbage you would think no one could possibly believe a word of it, and suddenly it is taken as gospel and repeated ad nauseum.
If you felt that the RDS comment called for evaluation, you would then see that his comment about “siccing” Kennedy on the FDA or CDC was not even saying something “mildly approving” of RFK but was a comment that these agencies would deserve being saddled with someone so critical of them. The image that came to my mind when I read this was of Rip in Yellowstone throwing the rattlesnake. The only way anyone could possibly see the comment about “siccing” Kennedy on these agencies as any level of “approval” would have to be based on one of those crystal ball insights into the heart and soul of someone to determine what he really thinks and feels, and then determine that he said this because he thought Kennedy would improve the agencies.
(Though now that I think of it, he might. They both need some healthy skepticism.)
And as for saying things that are “mildly approving” why aren’t we praising a candidate who does that? Why aren’t we approving the tactic of finding something good to say about someone even if we don’t agree with him?
I put Kennedy in the arena of “even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes”. Just because he is a nut on things like climate change, and is a Leftist, that doesn’t mean he hasn’t made some excellent points based on extensive research on the vaxx injuries from the Covid jabs. He’s not anti-vaccine, but he raises some excellent points about the experimental drugs foisted, under State authority and power, on the people.
I was debating whether to waste a few minutes and reply to Forty’s post about how Mark is advocating against free speech for “bad” people, but I see his comments have been deleted. For the record, It was not I who deleted his comments, but I second whoever did. As usual, he distorted what Mark said, and what Mark clarified in his response (which has also been deleted.) This is what Forty does: distorts, takes words out of context and lies. It’s why I haven’t responded to him/her in quite a while.
As to the point, Mark made it extremely clear that he was talking about actions, not speech, that society should not tolerate people who defecate on the sidewalk,, who loot stores, who assault strangers in public with no provocation, and who just generally act in a criminal and anti-social manner. End of story — full stop. If Forty wants to live in a society that not only tolerates such behavior, but often subsidizes and embraces it, he/she is fully free to do so. There are plenty of places in the United States where he/she can live among such people. He is even free to criticize those of us who do NOT want to live in such a society. He/she is NOT free to misrepresent the position of those of us who find such behavior repugnant without some pushback.
I have commented to a few of you in the past that I have come to think of fielding/forty (I can’t tell them apart if they are even two different entities) as bots or at least plants, just looking for clicks or the equivalent, so they say the most outrageous things we know are lies, purposely being provocative, just to get responses. There is no integrity there, no core value system, just a need to stir the pot, drag the string to see who will follow it, and give them their clicks.
That’s the only reason I can think of for their total lack of honesty. Even factoring in the distortion facts go through when passed through rabid filters, the claims they make are just too wacky to be explained by anything other than an effort to get attention.
But here’s the problem – you are egregiously mis-stating what I said. There is nothing even implied in what I wrote that I wish to limit in any way the free exchange of ideas.
I just don’t want people defecating on the sidewalk. Pitching a tent there. Looting the CVS. Vandalizing property. Wandering around drunk and/or stoned. Being filthy in public. In general, making life intolerable for decent people. The bums – now sober, clean and staying in one of the very many shelters we provide for the homeless – are free to organize politically to see if they can obtain majority support for wandering around in a drugged stupor…and if a majority of the local citizens want that, so be it. But they do not have a right to be garbage in public – nobody can possibly have a right to be a bum.
Has anyone here heard of Hunga Tonga? I had not, but the details explain a lot.
This, plus the information on the super-heated undersea vents, does explain a lot. It’s just that the explanations don’t support the political goals of “climate change” so the Complicit Agenda Media go along with suppressing them.
I’ve explained this before, but apparently our resident trolls need to be reminded how blog administrative privileges work. A long time ago, at least ten or 15 years ago, Mark took a lengthy sabbatical, and gave several regulars here administrative privileges so that we could write posts in his absence, I was one, Cluster was one, and there were at least one or two others. I don’t know if Amazona was one, because to the best of my recollection, she never did an original post. Matt Margolis and another individual whose name I don’t recall also did occasional posts. The vast majority of posts during that time were written by Cluster and myself.
Forty keeps bringing up the fact that I have admitted to being a moderator. IIRC, I did say that, given the fact that my administrative privileges have never been rescinded, I probably could act as a moderator, but I don’t.
This is the last time I’m going to address this.
Also, just for the record, I have it on pretty good authority, from someone who is in a position to know the facts, that the person who goes by Fortyacresbeyond has been a long-time vandal on this blog going back many years, and using screen names including, but not limited to, RGRG2, Simonee, Crewman, and Tryvasty. Further, this person has compiled an extensive dossier on the regulars on this blog, reflecting a relentless, sick, obsessive cyber-stalking mentality. It’s long past time to move on.
I found Blogs For Bush, (remember that), after going on Tom Delay’s blog during the vaunted Surge that was sure to bring us glorious Victory in Iraq. Those were the days right Almaranta? Spook has the same name and Cluster was Neocon as I recall.
That puts you back nearly 15 years. What does that say about the pathology of a person who visits where they’re not welcome, constantly attempts to provoke an argument, repeatedly gets kicked out and continues to come back for FIFTEEN FUCKING YEARS?
I’ve also noted, and commented on, the lack of personal dignity shown by the insistence on returning to a place where she or he has been so thoroughly rejected
I was once given the authority to post thread topics, though I never did. Like you, I suppose I could still do that if I felt like it.
I do know that those who were given some degree of administrative authority were expected to keep this confidential so I don’t know everyone who might have the authority to monitor posts, etc. It does look as if one of those entrusted with this has shared this confidential information with others and possibly exaggerated or even misrepresented it. That’s too bad. It is not only a violation of trust but has led to a spate of fretting, accusations, and cluttering of the blog with a lot of hyperemotional complaining.
I have had some of my own posts deleted, and see that even Mark has, as well. The thing is, it isn’t really such a big deal. The owners of the blog have the right to appoint anyone they want to help keep an eye on things and/or provide additional content. It’s their blog, and they can decide who can and can’t post, for any reason. Personally, I have kind of enjoyed watching the strange focus on me—-it looks like someone has some pretty severe mommy issues, and doesn’t deal well with the idea of a woman having any authority. If it meets some emotional need to believe that a woman is picking on him/her, instead of just accepting that moderator(s) find his/her posts obnoxious and of no value to the blog, that’s not my problem.
I have only pointed out that you have not been forthcoming about exercising your authority.
You are such a liar. Everyone here knows that you regularly whine and snivel when one of your troll droppings is flushed and blame it on me. I can be offline for days, but if something happens on the blog all you can do is whimper or snarl about AmazonaAmazonaAmazona. You give every indication of being obsessed with me and my supposed role on this blog.
As far as being “forthcoming” you simply have no authority to ask for any such thing. Any “authority” I might or might not have is none of your effing business. Nor do you have standing to demand responses to your blathering.
You are a zero here with no respect and no credibility. Just stop.
More and more Conservatives are starting to steal a line from the anti-Trump media. “The walls are closing in” on the Bidens.
It makes one wonder, if the evidence as damming as this is proven along with the trove of new information seemingly coming in daily, will the democrat / rino majority in the senate vote to hold responsible, impeach and prosecute with jail time? Hard to imagine they will considering the ridiculous responses they’ve given on other subjects. The only thing I can imagine at this point is Biden’s removal from office if the left see an advantage in doing so.
We could see an LBJ moment.
I think the Dems might be caught in political quicksand of their own making. Back in 2019 it probably made sense to them to put Biden up as their candidate, because he had name recognition, had been a VP, and was controllable. Let him indulge in some graft and he’d be happy. And Harris was obvious pandering to the element that demanded a woman president and/or a black woman president. They could offer her up and then keep her in VP limbo, appeasing the harpies. It probably looked like a great idea. They could even have Biden step aside at the end of his first term so she could run as an incumbent, with the skids greased to slide her right into eight more years—or so I’m guessing the planning went.
But then the wheels came off. Biden started to free-fall into total dementia, which couldn’t be hidden, and on top of that proof started piling up showing him not to be just a petty grifter but a seriously corrupt (though clumsy) criminal. And having Hunter bumbling around, stoned and disgusting and leaving trails of evidence of family misdeeds that should put them all in jail just made it worse for him.
In a perfect world, they could just jettison Biden and move on to their Symbol of Diversity, their black woman VP, and rack up points with the Left by making her president. But she has turned out to be such a flaming, abysmal, dramatic disaster that they really can’t risk putting her in the Oval Office. Maybe in November of 2024, with the election in the bag again, they could let her play president for a couple of months to establish the bragging point of THE FIRST BLACK WOMAN PRESIDENT but there is no way they could let her into that office for any length of time. Basically, a President Kamala Harris would send the message “The Last Thing This Country Needs Is Another Black Woman President” and be counterproductive to the Cause. The only way they can get rid of Biden is if they can provide an alternate that is an improvement, and they don’t have one. (If I were Kammy, I’d double up my security detail, because right now she is the biggest problem the Left has, far more so than Biden, who can be dealt with. No Harris, a different VP, and they can ditch Biden and move into the election with an incumbent.)
The Right, on the other hand, has a very similar problem. We can get rid of Biden but then we get Harris. While a President Harris would be a boon for the Right, politically, it would be a disaster for the nation, and given the passion with which the Complicit Agenda Media follow the Left’s scripts she would be swooned over (much as Michelle was) and every alarming gaffe would be hidden or denied.
Biden is the devil we know, and I think we’re stuck with him. However, a well-run impeachment would provide important information to the nation and possibly damage the entire Leftist brand. I think it’s a matter of timing. See if he is the nominee, then expose him to influence the election. Do it too soon and they just nominate someone else.
My own comment, No Harris, a different VP, and they can ditch Biden and move into the election with an incumbent led me to a possible strategy for the Left. That is, get Harris out of there, some way, some how. Bribe her, threaten her, do what it takes. She can resign, she can “slip and fall”, she can have a brain tumor (which would actually explain a lot) but she has to go.
Have Biden appoint a new VP, probably Newsome, and then the Left can sit there and grin at our dilemma. Because whether or not we go after Biden he resigns and we have a President Newsome, and an incumbent running in 2024.