Aside from sitting on the Supreme Court, there is not anything notable about her daftness. Almost to a man this is the line that leftists use to excuse the catastrophic results that socialism yields each time it is instituted, without exception. If it were not so serious, it would be entertaining to listen to the gibberish that is indistinguishable from insanity; after all these are people who cannot accept objective reality and wish to impose their views on the population as a whole.
What I find more alarming is that the inability to completely grasp reality is not limited to the left. Last night, I made the mistake of watching news on television. There was a lot of ranting about the evils of the Obama administration, the calling out of bad actors and explicit accusations of corruption since the 2016 presidential election in our entrenched and unaccountable bureaucracy. One phrase kept coming up: abuse of power.
It is frustrating to me that so many people only ever get it almost right. Of course there has been gross abuse of power. Of course there have been and are bad actors. The chances of this not happening are exactly zero. What the bobblehead pundits are missing is the fundamental premise that the Founders based our constitution on.
I hear people cite the separation of powers fairly often but it is not really that. It is not about separating of powers, it is about dividing power into smaller and smaller portions until no one person or group has the ability to do serious damage to our society. The Founders knew from experience that bad actors and abuse of power are inevitable so they crafted a system that dispersed power as much as possible.
Eventually some discussion of Senator Rand Paul’s hesitancy for endorsing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanagh came up. There seems to be much alarm about this yet no real examination of why Senator Paul has taken this position. While Kavanagh is a brilliant jurist and a fine human being, Paul’s hesitancy is based on Kavanagh’s less than stellar stance on Fourth Amendment rights. I think in the end Paul will vote to confirm, but now is his chance to call attention to the massive surveillance state we have built that is trampling our inalienable rights with impunity. You cannot have a massive surveillance state and secret courts in a free country. It is a simple fact. The FISA law and its courts should be burned to the ground and the ashes thrown in the sea. This is what Paul is trying to draw our eye to. This ain’t rocket science.
I would be satisfied with Kavanagh sitting on the court. He is probably the best we can hope for. He would be a huge help in undoing much of the undiluted evil that has been inflicted on us by statists, but he is not a cure for the problem. We must dismantle the apparatus of the surveillance state and the concentration of unaccountable power. As long as it remains, we will continue to have gross abuses of power.
Hear! Hear!
We must dismantle the apparatus of the surveillance state and the concentration of unaccountable power – good luck with that… I was sort of hoping since Trumpy is thus hatred, that the left would get a iota of concern about concentration to much power in the state, when it is obvious that they people they hate end up with it. Alas the rusty cogs that are their critical thinking apparatus did not turn once. Hell they may even be emboldened in their dreams of permanent majority
Just can’t ever let the wrong Lizard win eh?
have you got any gin?
Trump doesn’t control the Deep State, which is aligned with the Left. They see no downside yet in concentration too much power in the state.
i was thinking of idealistic lefty voters not the deep state. the deep state don’t care
It’s all deck chair shuffling as long as you mammals stay armed to the teeth. Don’t sweat it.
Good point. Could be a good follow up article as well.
“I think in the end Paul will vote to confirm”
All hail Suthenboy: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/30/rand-paul-says-will-support-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh.html
Probably the right move. Rand is smart.
he’s a politician… it is good to keep some pro liberty credentials either way.
“Look, I’m a politician. That means that when I’m not kissing babies, I’m stealing their lollipops – but it also means I keep my options open”
Will Trump dump Pence in favor of Paul for VP 2020?
Rand wants to be president. To do so will require support of the Republican base. This move should lend a hand to that, while simultaneously acknowledging the surveillance state issue.
This goes hand in hand with one of my pet peeves, which is shortsightedness. Once a political party is in power, they and their followers get the idea they will always stay in power, so they do their best to increase that power. Never thinking that the pendulum always swings back… because THIS time the pendulum will defy the laws of physics and stay where it is.
they don’t care cause they will be back in power sooner or later. their followers on the other hand are not the sharpest tools in the shed.
^This. It’s not shortsighted when you know you’ll come back into power eventually. It’s only shortsighted if you have principles beyond personal gain.
Very well said, Suthen. The degree of power that rests with an unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy is pretty shocking.
“In 1981, Elena Kagan wrote her undergrad thesis on why socialism failed in the United States. It is a mixture of the usual litany of excuses, but primarily she contends that: A) the right people weren’t in charge; and B) the people were deplorables who voted against their own interests. They were unworthy of the glories of socialism.”
Socialism, be it marxism, fascism, or any other bullshit implementation where some people gain power and wealth by turning the envy of slothful masses against the productive, has NEVER failed. It has always produced exactly what it is about, because you can’t separate the necessary totalitarian and completely inhumane leadership and the destruction of those that oppose the abuses and outright destruction these evil ideologies are based on, from the experience. Socialism by its nature fails outside the family structure (and often even there), because man is simply not a saint, and that is a prerequisite of that system for it to have the “right people” in charge.
We’ll never know what was in RGB’s undergrad thesis. The Romans torched Carthage to the ground.
*symphony applause*
Great points. I’m a big fanboy of competition. Not for me of course, but I want every person and every organization I deal with to be in competition with a horde of hungry competitors. There is no rule, regulation, or norm that will keep the person on the other side of the table honest like the ability to say “No thanks, I’ll go down the street and deal with them.” The only time you get those alternatives is when no single party is too powerful. Doesn’t matter if its a state, a private org, or a crony-hybrid of the two. Juggernauts make for bad partners.
Undergrad thesis, like high school capstone projects, are almost universally embarrassing and a waste of effort.
*theses
I made a candlestick for my undergrad thesis. Well, specifically, I convinced to material-handling robots to lovingly caress other people’s half-made candlesticks in and out of CNC machines. Given that we had to use a lathe, a mill, and a glue dispenser… yeah, those were some fucked up candlesticks. There’s not candlestick you can be proud of that includes glue.
Sounds like you made proto sex robot. Wrote my thesis on Moby Dick. Never want to look at that book again.
It would be like getting a hand job from the post-flesh-burned-off Terminator. A Fanuc five axis is not something anyone would want to put their fleshy bits into.
I convinced to material-handling robots to lovingly caress other people’s half-made candlesticks in and out
That may be the greatest euphemism I’ve ever seen.
I invoke my 93d right under the Brussels Syndication to be forgotten.
My team gave a roomba eyes and programmed it to map out a room.
Agreed without reservation on all points.
This is the surest way to ruin your mood and deplete your faith in humanity. I avoid it at all costs these days.
+ one case of Rolaids.
I can’t watch it either, half of them don’t understand plain English, half of them don’t ask the right questions and the other half are partisan shills cheering for their team no matter what.
Preach brother.
Why shouldn’t 9 people in black robes decide everything from abortion to gay marriage for 326 million people?
Look around this world we made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the brotherhood of man
Oh what a wide contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the red star proudly high in hand
We are the priests
Of the Temples of Syrinx
Proudly taking care of everything, the words you hear
the songs you sing, since 2112.
The Pictures that You plug into your Eyes,
Because, if they do it correctly, the SC’s role is basically to listen to what the government is trying to do and then cut them off with an air-horn and a gusty “NOOOOOOOOO” when the government starts describing something unconstitutional. The SC decided a while ago that common law doesn’t apply to federal law. Most of the complaints we would have about what they are doing is when they have back-doored new common-law-type judge made law in place when it didn’t exist before.
I’m not an expert on the Constitution by any means, but whether you have a functioning system of checks and balances or even a functional parchment barrier, the concentration of power in the capital of such a large country is going to corrupt the system. Granted, the US pulled it off for a long time, but when it went off the tracks it went for largest creditor in the world to largest debtor in the blink of an eye. That’s not to mention all the civil liberty violations they routinely carry out.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with any of that.
Tricky. One of the few times I actually understood the saying, “Ignorance is Bliss” was after studying Public Choice Theory. They basically admit there isn’t much you can do to stop the rot short of catastrophe.
Why not just go fly off to a new planet?
-RAH
Kind of did. Just watched this debate between Lauren Southern and Larkin Rose on borders. They both did well. It gets to the legitimacy of government and protections of liberty. Wondering if anyone else saw it.
While we’re getting our Rush on:
They left the planet long ago, the elder race still learn and grow….
On my Ship the Rosinante,
Wheeling through the Galaxies?
the concentration of power in the capital
This is why the unintended consequences of the civil war were so dire. The states were the ultimate chack on the fedgov. Once their balls were lopped off, the decline was inevitable.
If that’s what they did I would pay to watch:
It’s not a tax, it’s a fee—AAAAAGGHHH!!! there’s Justice Thomas with the air horn again.
I prefer a designated hitter rule.
And straffin hits the heart of the matter. They shouldn’t be deciding anything aside from the constitutionality of written law and its application.
SCOTUS has reached the point where they are officiating a basketball game; gather up the loose balls; and shoot to help the side they prefer.
Another surprise ruling from the 9th.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/30/trump-supporters-pelted-by-eggs-punches-can-sue-san-jose-cops-in-attack-court-says.html
Didn’t I hear something similar about the Charlottesville debacle? I seem to recall hearing that the police herded the two groups together, and then sat on their backsides while the mess developed.
Yes, that’s pretty much exactly what happened. The Charlottesville police and their nitwit chief did virtually nothing to separate the two groups.
They directed them together to facilitate violence to justify shutting the whole thing down, which led to the escalation that resulted in manslaughter.
If there is a gauge showing the probability of settlement before discovery, the needle would be red-lined and bending around the peg. I wonder if anyone will turn down the payday to get a hold of internal communications.
those servers were lost in that warehouse fire that happened next week.
after all these are people who cannot accept objective reality and wish to impose their views on the population as a whole
But how are they any different from libertarians, who cannot accept that people desperately want to be governed down to their choice of soda and the straws by which they consume it? Libertarians want to impose their view of radical autonomy on a population of would-be subjects.
“lovingly caress other people’s half-made candlesticks in and out”
I need a cigarette.
While Kavanagh is a brilliant jurist and a fine human being, Paul’s hesitancy is based on Kavanagh’s less than stellar stance on Fourth Amendment rights.
It is a sad thing indeed that Sotomayor is the only reliably pro-4A justice on the SC.
God, aint that the truth.
I’m holding out a lot of hope for Goresuch. I think is “dissent” in Carpenter is a DINO (dissent in name only) and would have been a concurrence in the result if Roberts couldn’t get 5 votes. For that matter, I think Roberts:4A what Kennedy:Abortion. 1A and 4A seem to be his babies, and where he wants his court and his personal legacy to rest.
I wouldn’t worry too much about an undergrad thesis. There is a paper out there that I did in college extolling the virtues of non-gendered pronouns. I knew my audience. Two is the old saw if you’re not a liberal when you’re young you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative when you’re old you have no brain. The problem with Kagan is the second part.
I agree that an undergrad thesis is not a big deal for most people as most people really aren’t very bright or wise, especially at that age. I do think that a person who is going to sit on the SC should be held to a higher standard than most people.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Kagan has gotten smarter with age.
She was a baffling pick to me. As bad as I expected any of President Obama;s picks to be she seems to be a lightweight thinker.
Am I wrong and just haven’t looked at her records that deeply?
You are not wrong.
Yes. You might not agree with her, but opinions are beautifully written (which is not as good an indicator of general intelligence as people assume) with incredibly tight logic (which is.) Don’t let the fact that her priors are different than yours get in the why. She is a top-flight jurist. There’s a reason Scallia got on so well with her.
Also, you can’t ignore the fact that she was selected because she’s an expert at the inside game. Obama saw first-hand what kind of coalition builder and persuader she was. I would be serious money that she was the one who flipped Roberts.
Roman Hruska begs to differ. (RE: Harrold Carswell)
Shit, I’m heartless and brainless, since I haven’t leaned left since I was 14 and I was done with conservatism by 24.
Ha. Hahaha
Elsewhere…..this is as pathetic a thing as you’ll ever read.
That is the kind of mentality that leads to violence. Some around here have pointed out that the left in this country could never mount enough resistance to amount to civil war and that is probably true, but this all-or-nothing, zero tolerance mentality is still dangerous.
It’s essentially saying that anyone wishing to remain in good standing on the left must completely renounce everyone not on the left. You are only allowed to have any associations of any kind with your fellow travelers. Anyone else must be unpersoned.
It leads to violence because guys like Davis kowtow to it every step up to violence ensuing. If you knew nothing about reason, ethics and morality, and you saw this whole charade play out, who would you assume was right? Guys like him give these deranged cadres their moral stamp of approval.
I don’t see a civil war, but I do see riots. I think we are well on our way based on the attacks on Trump’s star.
Politics be damned.
Amen.
So he’s a piece of shit who will throw his friend under the bus or he lied about his friend being a nice guy. Way to paint yourself into a corner.
I’ll bet the farm on the former.
Jeezus, it’s actual struggle sessions.
Yup. Note in particular the pathetic, pleading, groveling tone – it’s exactly the same as in the stories I’ve read about the original Cultural Revolution.
I used to wonder how a country could fall under the sway of children and allow them to run rampant like that. Not anymore.
never got the CEO argument. A small fraction of the population. The fact that 90% are men does not help me one bit nor does it affect most women.
Honestly, what a chickenshit. You know, the only reason these little shits have any power is that people like Davis fold to them. I’d love to see the Georgia legislature (Republican majority) put him in the position of having to explain.
kids have tantrums when they don’t get what they want. you know what happens if you give in and give them what they want? more tantrums.
the right people weren’t in charge
When all is said and done, the delusion that such a thing as “the right people”, capable of controlling an entire economy (society) by force of will and central planning, might actually exist is one of the most idiotic and lethal in the history of mankind.
I am the right people . I would make a great supreme ruler.
Get in line behind me.
Sorry, you both have been supplanted BY ME. KNEEL BEFORE
ZODSWISS!I think you meant
BOOOOOOOOOSHTrump here. I can’t imagine the press ever doing this to the Anointed.It is worth mentioning that picking for the court is always a crap shoot. Looking at what someone has done while they were not on the court isnt necessarily a good way to know what they are going to do when they are. A lot of presidents have made what looked like fantastic picks at the time and they turned out to be completely craptastic after the fact.
Who knows how Kavanaugh will rule on the 4th? We will have to wait and see.
Look at Roberts, I never would have guessed that he would protect the penaltax.
Good article BTW, really enjoyed it and agree 100%
Thank you.
Yes….Roberts. *spits on the ground*
If I ever catch that boy, gonna put him in the house of detention
House of detention being the woodshed? That is what I had in mind.
*Story told to me recently – Someone I know was an elector. They went to DC to a convention of some sort and afterwards there were a number of parties. Everyone just picked which party they wanted to attend. This guy picked one party because they were serving seafood at the party.
He gets to the party and sees that the food line is long so he waits until the line goes down. When he finally gets in the line he sees that the fried shrimp is almost gone, just a few left. As he is reaching for the shrimp with tongs a hand comes out of nowhere and scoops all of the shrimp out from under him. He looks up and…
“It was that goddamned asshole Kennedy. The son of a bitch was laughing as he walked away eating my shrimp.”
Anthony, I’m assuming? It’s hard to be sure which Kennedy you’re talking about when the description is “goddamned asshole”
Haha, yes. I should have specified.
+1 Me and Julio
finally
The penaltax is so utterly infuriating because I (admittedly no attorney) do not understand how something can be both a tax or a penalty depending on the situation. Neither do I understand how a judge can render a judgment in favor of a defendant while using a completely different argument than the defendant made.
Start with the desired outcome and work backwards.
That is because you think FYTW is just a joke we tell each other around here.
Roberts just gave the nation a double middle finger while blowing a raspberry.
It’s actually the opposite of the argument the defendant was making. Congress explicitly said “not a tax.” Obama explicitly said “not a tax.” Roberts said “for jurisdictional reasons it’s not a tax, but to save the bill, we’ll call it a tax.”
The other infuriating thing is that if it is a tax it must originate in the house, which should have invalidated the law given that it originated in the senate.
IIRC, they finessed that. They took a bill from the house, wiped out the text, and inserted the text of their new abomination. Thus (technically), it originated in the house, the Senate amended it to the point that it no longer resembled the original bill, and then went through the process.
Personal opinion: If you amend a bill such that more than 10% of it is different, you have a different bill which originated in your chamber.
One of the bits I cut from the article before submitting was on the soundness of our constitution (I know, it is a collection of compromises) evidenced by the extraordinary twisted logic and whatthefuckisms that the court has had to pull out of its ass over the years in order to get around it. Jones/Van Zant, Wickard and Penaltax come to mind right off of the bat.
It’s why Obama was a “Constitutional Scholar”, he studied it to find ways around it.
Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean what a plain reading of the words indicate it means, but a right to privacy means abortions?
I’ve been thinking about writing an article on things like that, but it starts to sound like”Old man yells at cloud” after a while.
“It’s why Obama was a “Constitutional Scholar”, he studied it to find ways around it.”
Ah, bullshit. The man didn’t study shit past Das Kapital.
I will grant you that he was given that title by people that hoped to pad his resume to the voters, and of course, people being people, everyone assumed the wrong thing when the real lesson about Obama was that he and his followers consider that thing great when it helps their agenda and an obsolete piece of shit paper written by white slave owners now dead for over 150 years, and hindrance to progress.
I was always a fan of your american first amendment. I find the equivalent in the Romanian language amusing.
Articles 1 and 2
(1) Libertatea de exprimare a gândurilor, a opiniilor sau a credinţelor şi libertatea creaţiilor de orice fel, prin viu grai, prin scris, prin imagini, prin sunete sau prin alte mijloace de comunicare în public, sunt inviolabile.
(2) Cenzura de orice fel este interzisă.
liberty of expression shall not be violated
all forms of censorship are forbidden
Follower by article 7
Sunt interzise de lege defăimarea ţării şi a naţiunii, îndemnul la război de agresiune, la ură naţională, rasială, de clasă sau religioasă, incitarea la discriminare, la separatism teritorial sau la violenţă publică, precum şi manifestările obscene, contrare bunelor moravuri.
Basically it is forbidden to insult the country or the nation, do incite hatred or discrimination (not defined what that means), obscenity (undefined) and attacks on public mores (undefined)
SO basically freedom of expression except for anything the state decides to make illegal… great
You have whatever freedom of speech we’ve deigned to allow you to have!
That is the argument now that the left thinks it controls the means to shut down free speech. These fuckers never wanted free speech of any kind, they wanted to take over the institutions of learning and then indoctrinate enough people so that they could finally shut down free speech once they had power.
This is from the Soviet Constitution enacted in 1936. Yep, Stalin’s constitution:
The rights on paper didn’t look so bad.
A constitution is only as good as the willingness of the people to enforce it.
That was why our constitution had the Second Amendment, and why the prog movement so despises that 2nd Amendment.
That’s the thing with these progressives: they want everyone to be impressed with shit on a piece of paper, and as long as it promotes their agenda, will fawn all over it. Reality plays out quite differently when those “freedoms” hurt the cause.
It’s why they demanded Trump surrender and shut the fuck up if Hillary won the election, but then became “resisters” when she lost the election they thought they had rigged in her favor.
I would be satisfied with Kavanagh sitting on the court. He is probably the best we can hope for.
He seems pretty unexceptional, to me, but based on the wailing and rending of garments on the left, you’d think he is champing at the bit to overturn Brown v The Board of education in addition to Roe v Wade.
Kagan should have received exactly the same response as when BOOOOSH tried to nominate his secretary, or whoever she was.
But the Ascended One wanted her, and that was good enough.
*Harriet Miers
Or when LBJ nominated his crony Abe Fortas.
Looked up Fortas. The following alone is reason to have disdain for him (I mean other than the fact that he was apparently LBJ’s lapdog):
Meirs was a lightweight. Kagan is a socialist. Neither one belongs on the bench.
Maybe one of the legal eagles here can explain something to me. It seems that a lot of people in the legal field say that judicial restraint is just a gimmick to prevent the judiciary from exercising its rightful place alongside the other branches of government and isn’t “respectable” legal theory, as a result. Well, okay. So far, so good, I guess. But, why do those same people turn around and say that Lochner was this terribly sided decision that is an embarrassment to the Court and anyone who thinks otherwise is just some sort of joke? I mean, wasn’t the whole argument against Lochner essentially just judicial restraint?
There are two veins of judicial restraint. The first one has its roots in the progressive era, when progressive judges were making arguments about how they couldn’t counteract the elected-majority of the people, as expressed in the New Deal. I think that it was pretty clear that there was a serious up-tick in overturned laws at the time, but its because the scope of new laws was expanding. This is where Lochner comes in – deciding that the democratically-enacted restriction on contract is unconstitutional. Thinking that the courts erasing this law is a violation of restraint is consistent.
The second vein of judicial restraint started out in the same place, but then somehow managed to eat the brain of conservatives for 50 years. The progressives made restraint cool, and the conservatives latched onto it. It was also informed by like Burkean conservationism, where one judge striking down a law was seen as the same thing as knocking down fences before understanding why they are there. You may hear them that they don’t hate Lochner, which would be inconsistent.
But in either case, restraint is (thankfully) going out of fashion.
The progressives just use it as a club out of habit to tell conservatives not to do their job. These same people think that Lochner was wrong because it didn’t have a progressive outcome. There is no underlying legal theory in the modern beyond the will to power. That’s how they can be hypocritical and Lochner and restraint as seen from the outside.
The libertarian strain emerged in the last couple decades, and promoted the ideas of formalism and originalism. This strain thinks Lochner was probably 100% right. This strain has not interest in judicial restraint. IJ in particular is trying to make “judicial engagement” happen, which would be ok by me. An “engaged” decision is where a judge looks at the government’s case with proper cynicism and actually engages with the arguments. An “unengaged” decision is where they take the pigs word for it. So Lochner is a properly engaged decision.
The conservative strain is finally casting off judicial restraint. They are, generally speaking, the stupid party in this taxonomy.
TLDR – Judicial restraint is bullshit and anyone pushing it is either stupid or evil.
So, from the sound of it, there’s no particular reason to attack Lochner and then claim that judicial restraint is a bad idea. From your description, it doesn’t sound like there were ever really two veins of judicial restraint. It’s just that progressives weren’t terribly happy with the implications when it hit their sacred cows. Either the majority has some right to express its will as law, or it doesn’t. I’m inclined to agree with you that the entire point of a Constitution is to tell democratic majorities when they can’t. But, to say, they can here and not there is a bit of a joke.
Yes, with one caveat
I would say it was more about timing. When the progressives were in the minority in the SC and some dudes with the greatest judicial nick-name of all time were striking down New Deal laws, the progressives were big fans of judicial restraint. When the progressives got in power, they were like, what? us? restrain ourselves? LOL.
That’s when conservatives got into judicial restraint (not stupid). But the thing the conservatives fucked up on was that they really believed in it an applied it to themselves first.
I think NFIB is the last nail in the coffin for judicial restraint. I think that even the conservatives have figured out its bullshit at this point, and we’ll see more activist conservatives like Alito on his decade+ quest to kill agency fees.
Basically they were for it when it helped them, and against it as soon as it became a pain in their side when enacting their unconstitutional agenda?
Nice article, Suthen. I don’t have any substantive comment, save that it is a crying shame that the SCOTUS has become as critical to everyone’s day-to-day life as it has.
Exactly. No government entity should be so vital to deciding whether basic rights are respected that it causes anxiety among the populace. The fact that this happens at all shows how much illegitimate, unaccountable power has already been concentrated in the FedGov.
If you democracy would die if the wrong person won one election, your democracy is already dead.
IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVERRRRRRRRR!
*drops dead*
SO basically freedom of expression except for anything the state decides to make illegal… great
You are free to sing the praises of the State. What more could you possibly desire?
That is more or less the standard the world over. America really is unique in this respect, and not just unique in the world today but in all of history.
A University of Georgia professor issued an apology to those he had “offended” when he congratulated an old friend on becoming the state’s Republican candidate for governor.
“I’m sorry you’re such a mob of thinskinned vacuous retards.”
The Founders knew from experience that bad actors and abuse of power are inevitable so they crafted a system that dispersed power as much as possible.
So they crafted a decent governmental document, ratified it and nearly immediately set about violating it. The Constitution can’t and won’t enforce itself.
+1 Sedition Act
This is a fun exchange.
Look, anyone who would put down the Whisky Rebellion is suspect. Lets break it down.
1) Whiskey – That’s a good thing. Obviously.
2) Rebellion – That’s a good thing. Obviously.
The signs were all there early. Wake. Up. Sheeple.
GAY FROGS!
Don’t judge Kermit.
Piggy’s his beard?
Something something fat chicks something fag hags.
Write the constitution and all laws in lojban and if they contradict, the law is void?
Of course, I am pretty sure that there would be a Goedel incompleteness theorem problem if you tried that.
My new retort to socialists’ broken record excuse:
Hitler wasn’t a true Nazi. Real Nazism hasn’t been tried.
Excellent.
My old retort to socialist apologists:
How many people paddled a raft made of inner tubes and bedsprings through shark infested waters from Miami to Havana in search of a better life?
None. And if anyone wanted to go, we’d have given them a boat and a push.
Only because the United States embargoes Cuban imports, and they just can’t scrape by with literally the rest of the industrialized world free to call on their ports.
Nice. Will apply liberally.
STEVE SMITH FEEL HIS CINEMA WORK BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CRITICS. POLITICS RUIN EVERYTHING.
Who doesn’t like a little Bigfoot porn in their life?
*raises hand*
Well we know that his opponent smokes after sex, where else do you get a name like Cockburn?
Even better is the snowflake brigade coming along and saying “Don’t conflate bigfoot fetishism with white supremacy!” Given the WOLF! WOLF! WOLF! constantly going on, I’m very skeptical of this guy being a “white supremacist” anyway.
I hate everyone in that story.
So lets assume for the sake of argument that the left is correct and no one in the alphabet agencies did anything untoward to stop Trump and they were all really acting out of the purest motivations to investigate Russian Interference. We still have a problem.
This whole affair shows how the state security apparatus is currently set up to become in essence an American Praetorian Guard. There is no meaningful oversight to anything they do and they can spy on and essentially manufacture charges against any politician they want, including a sitting President.
Even if they are not currently attempting to seize control of the apparatus of government it is inevitable that they will do so and once they do only a violent revolution will be able to oust them from power.
In essence we have created all of the elements that the Communist Party and KGB combined to maintain power over Russia and in the best case scenario they are just sitting there waiting for someone willing to use them.
I put it this way, for the first time that I know of, no matter which side is right it means a conspiracy theory was right.
IE: either the RuzZiuns installed a puppet or the DeEp STAte unseated a duly elected president.
there are plenty of ways in which neither can be true.
That would require an even less plausible theory. As Peter Sztrok put it “there’s no big there there.”
Maybe the problem is you think everything needs a grand over-arching theory to explain otherwise-banal facts, unguided by any unifying theme.
Spying on domestic political opponents, carrying out a full-scale counterintelligence operation against them, attempting to frame them at least six or seven times… I would not call those things banal. Unless you’re going for the banality of evil theory.
“”Carrying out a full-scale counterintelligence operation against them, attempting to frame them at least six or seven times””
this is your characterization of “FBI investigating carter page + manafort etc. ties to foreign govts”.
or how things like “page once was once questioned by FBI” turns into = HE WUZ THEIR COVERT ASSET (via the analytics of the ever-reliable ‘Conservative Treehouse’)
there is a gap between the facts and the hyperbole you seem to think is required to understand them
It wasn’t me but Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security who described Carter Page as an FBI undercover employee.
The conservative treehouse is indeed one of the most reliable sources of information on this issue, Only someone like Lee Smith currently at realclearinvestigations is on a similar level. Incidentally, it was Lee Smith who counted 6 or 7 attempts to frame the Trump campaign.
Notice that I provide links that support my assertions.
There does not need to be an overarching story here.
I do not believe that anyone is alleging that the US Intelligence agencies were themselves conspiring to interfere in the election but rather that individuals within those agencies did so.
And unless they manage to manufacture some actual incontrovertable evidence of Russia and Trump working together, evidence that was known to those individuals prior to the election I do not see how anyone looking at the evidence honestly can come to any conclusion other than McCabe, Strock, et al were engaged in a conspiracy to first deny Trump the Presidency and then remove him from office.
The point I am making is the fact that they are largely getting away with this with no hint of sanction and a huge portion of the population willingly backing them means that we have created the mechanism by which someone just a bit more power hungry and unethical could effectively set themselves up to be the kingmaker and the only meaningful power in DC.
“who described Carter Page as ”
That document describes an undercover FBI employee.
the connect-the-dots you and the rest of the frothing-red internet make to assert this “must be page and can’t possibly be a third person”
….isn’t actually substantiated; its just vigorously claimed.
the inability to distinguish between “claims” and “facts” is part of why you find this all very convincing and i don’t.
Those ARE 2 very different claims.
i’ve seen a few people act as tho they’re one and the same claim.
i think its relatively clear Struzk (sp) and others were certainly motivated to try and fuck w/ Trump; whether they actually managed to do so in any substantive way, or whether it matters at all…. isn’t so clear.
I imagine there were also people involved in the Clinton investigation who knew it was a whitewash, and were very pissed off about it. There was a pretty interesting conflict between the NYC and DC branches of the FBI and how the Clinton material was handled (which was detailed in the WSJ story about conflict over the weiner laptop stuff)
and if those people’s texts were somehow disclosed, that the blue-media could spin a similar tale about a super-partisan FBI “out to get her”
I’m not trying to convince you. I’m pointing out to readers of this site that your position on this issue is wrong. While you’re waiting for an explanation/confirmation from
gazeta Pravdathe New York Times, people can decide for themselves whether there’s enough evidence that Carter Page was an UCE (undercover employee) of the FBI up to March 2016.I know very well the difference between facts and claims. I also know when the evidence is so overwhelming that a claim should be treated as a fact.
That is a bit unnerving when you put it that way.
We got a hint of this when Obama used the IRS to go after organizations that were not Dem-friendly. There is, in theory, congressional oversight, but just like the budget, declaring war, and a whole host of other things congress has been happy to either wash their hands of it, or make a show of it that results in nothing.
Power creates its own gravitational well; it starts accumulating slowly but once it reaches some kind of critical amount it starts concentrating rapidly. We’ve gone far beyond that point.
You are absolutely right; the permanent bureaucracy/deep state/whatever you want to call them have more than enough power to run a shadow government regardless of election outcomes. Congress could stop it, but they are far too invested in being the ones that get to try and steer the beast toward their enemies to consolidate power.
We’re fucked.
Here’s some primo cringeworthy wishcasting that might have been posted already but here y’all go:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/opinion/columnists/trump-loss-re-election-2020.html
He’s right, they really are fake news.
Not only are they fake news, they’re the enemy of the people.
These are children throwing tantrums because they are not getting their ice cream before dinner. Fuck them.
Related:
https://www.wral.com/new-york-times-publisher-and-trump-clash-over-president-s-threats-against-journalism/17732980
They’re hated and they only have themselves to blame.
Drop your android device and stop using Google. Better yet, get rid of your smart phone.
https://townhall.com/notebook/bethbaumann/2018/07/28/google-plays-updated-developer-policy-bans-apps-used-for-selling-guns-and-firearms-accessories-n2504697
All this shit is so frustrating. But getting rid of my smart phone isn’t really an option for me, so what the hell do I do to protest it? Send off sternly worded emails? Rant against them on internet message boards? Assholes piss me off, but they have me addicted to tech, so I am now putty in their hands.
Not so addicted that you couldn’t get rid of it. Don’t prove Ted Kaczynski right that you’re a slave to inanimate technology.
Yeah, I guess you’re right. I’m old enough that I grew up without it. Hell, I was in my 30’s before I even got a smart phone. I should be able to go back to not having one. I guess I just don’t want to…yet.
This is why I can’t see myself giving up my smart phone:
50 Things Your Smartphone Replaced [Or Will Replace In The Future]
Apple is better than Google when it comes to gun related stuff, maybe suprisingly maybe not.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/tim-cook-wont-remove-nra-channel-from-apple-tv.835661/
I…uhhh…..no comment.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pregnant-goat-dies-after-being-gangraped-by-8-men-in-haryana/story-JlFvxZgoPAePsZ4SVz7RbJ.html
Bastages killed muh goat!
Say what now?
But as Trump seethed — and tweeted — in defeat late Tuesday and President-elect Elizabeth Warren celebrated, the arc of the Trump story is starting to make more sense than it has for much of his chaotic presidency:
A nuthouse, with typewriters.
12 monkeys, 10 minutes.
No possible way that the absurd transgender nonsense could be abused. No way at all.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-legally-changes-sex-cheaper-car-insurance.html
The should demand he show up to a gynecologist every 6 months for an “inspection” to keep his insurance?
NOT ALL WOMEN HAVE VAGINAS YOU TRANSPHOBIC SHITLORD
Biological men who identify as women can even supposedly have periods. I presume it involves ketchup and a lot of complaining.
Can someone splain to me why the fuck shit like this can happen?
Seriously, if nobody is held accountable at the most frighting and dangerous US three letter agency with the power to destroy everyone’s lives, why the fuck would I ever trust government to do a decent job of anything?
More to the point, why would we ever trust you to properly link?
LINX.
Infuriating. I am for the flat tax idea if for no other reason that the IRS -as we now know it- would cease to exist.
Shit like what?
In the mail.
https://www.libertariancountry.com/products/1984-make-orwell-fiction-again-t-shirt
Goes well with my “I Love Guns and Titties” shirt.