I voted for President Trump … I am Spartacus and I am still living the Dream

| January 21, 2021

It does not surprise me that Libtarded Henchpersons are out to bully and intimidate Trump supporters.  It is predictable.  The hoards of Hillary hooligans all amped up on their daily dose of spoon-fed Fascist rancor and gloating about their victory over Trumptards are too deaf to listen to reason in any form.     That is exactly how I would describe the behavior of Democrats over the past four years… Rancorous.

Four years ago they were screaming in the streets to impeach 45… before he was even President.   They were inciting the public to attack the President and all of his supporters, in the street, at their homes, and in restaurants.

The venomous vitriol was unrelenting for four years.  Public cries to blow up the White House,  baited questions about how long it has been since an Actor Assassinated a President.  The pious arrogance that Nancy Pelosi used to guarantee a Clinton victory on that election night was repugnant.  Her conduct over the past four years has been reprehensible.

What we have witnessed has a name.  Socrates’s salient warnings about democracy, a democracy in which every donkey and dog may vote, have been long forgotten.  He warned that it will result in demagoguery.

dem·a·gog·uer·y
/?dem???ä?(?)r?/
  1. political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.
    “the demagoguery of political opportunists”

The crescendo of screaming from the Liberal Left was so loud that there was no tone for Reason or Critical Thinking.  They had become the very thing they were accusing others of.  They had become irrational, unhinged, and were purporting little more than emotional histrionics.

When many of the elitists on the left took to the airways to encourage the overthrow of an election by asking members of the Electoral College to vote for the one who had lost, they didn’t call it an attempted “coup d’é·tat”.  Nah, that was just Free Speech and Patriotic.

I will not sit silent.  I do not support the Democratic Platform.  I will not do the things that those on the left who were infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome did.  I will not burn down my own neighborhood.  I will not attack, beat, threaten, or harass anyone who voted for or who supports President Biden.  I will not stand idly by while anyone attempts to do such a thing in my presence.  But… I will not be silenced.  Nor will I sit by while others are being silenced.

I will speak out against the policies of the Liberal Left… because they are demonstrably wrong.  No amount of demagoguery from their political opportunists will make them correct.

This current trend of Corporations de-platforming and silencing people because they are not “thinking properly” has to be put to an end.  Not only do I have a right to Free Political Speech,  I have a right to its result,  Free Political Listening.  I will not be denied the right to listen to whom I choose.  As the Leftist Democrats and their ilk try to conduct the equivalent of  “Book Burnings” to silence Free Thought,  I will not stay silent.  Without an exception,  every time that has happened in history… very bad things followed.

As the Liberal mob, unhinged and hysterical, goose-step down my street looking for Trump Supporters  I will proudly stand and announce, “Here, over here… I am Spartacus!”

If you are so inclined to exercise your right to Free Political Listening, try this:

 

 

 

 

Category: 2020 Election, ANTIFA, Democrats, Liberals suck

Comments (101)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Commissar says:

    You all should have rewatched Spartacus before voting for Trump…

    “We’ve already been made to look a fool. Let’s not add the trappings of a clown”

    • Slow Joe says:

      Commissar, fuck yourself in the ass, mothefucker.

      I always defended your right to speak, when have you returned the favor to any conservative?

      Go back to your hole and eat a bag of dicks!

      • Commissar says:

        You defend my right to speak? But I have not extended the same courtesy?

        When have i advocate banning any conservatives here?

        • Hondo says:

          Best I can recall, you haven’t done that – yet. But in this comment, you rather strongly defended the right of “mere communications channel providers” to censor material based on content and political point of view:

          https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=83544#comment-3185980

          Since there is no legally or even widely accepted definition of “hate speech”, well, even defining the term is problematic. One person’s “hate speech” is often another person’s religious beliefs. Examples: the morons at Westboro Baptist Church, or those who hold that Islamic Sharia requires ALL women to wear a burqa. The authority to ban one implies the authority to ban the other. Banning either would be antithetical to the principles contained in First Amendment of the Constitution.

          The only difference I can see between what Twitter/Facebook/et al are doing here and the KKK’s intimidation tactics against those supporting the Civil Rights movement in the Jim Crow South was the Klan’s generally implied (but sometimes overt) threat of violence in the event of non-compliance. Twitter/Facebook/et al have simply replaced that threat of violence with the threat of deplatforming. However, they’re still practicing intimidation to enforce their “approved” political views. But since their politics mirror yours, apparently you’re OK with that.

          That’s also exactly what Jim Crow era newspapers in the South did when they acted as de facto cheerleaders for the then-legal segregation and discrimination imposed by law. Per your comment above, apparently you’re OK with that, too.

          Lest you forget: both the KKK and those newspapers were also private organizations. And no, I’m not defending the KKK’s actions – which clearly were unlawful as well as morally wrong. I’m also not defending those of of the newspapers, even though those actions were legal; they were also morally wrong. I’m merely using them as examples to point out the logical consequences of your argument in the cited comment above you made.

          So, tell us: do you or do you not defend censorship on the basis of political content by supposedly “mere providers of communications”? If so, why and under what circumstances? Would it be OK for AT&T or the other telecom providers to listen in on private phone calls and report “hate speech” to the authorities, or unilaterally terminate calls if such speech was present? How about ISPs monitoring private e-mail on the same basis, and banning the use of encrypted email so they can do so? How about laws banning “hate speech” altogether, First Amendment be damned?

          Not holding my breath waiting for an answer, and based on your past “spew half-baked idiocy, then cut-and-run” behavior I frankly don’t expect one.

          • gitarcarver says:

            Hondo,

            If I may, I would like to offer some backing for your post and the thoughts contained therein.

            Since there is no legally or even widely accepted definition of “hate speech”, well, even defining the term is problematic.

            Quoting Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court opined:

            Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”

            In Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held that the mere burning of a cross (by the KKK) was protected speech. The Court ruled that the act must be one of intimidation in order not to be afforded First Amendment protection.

            Twitter/Facebook/et al have simply replaced that threat of violence with the threat of deplatforming.

            You may remember the “browser wars” starting in the 1980’s. In 1998, Microsoft was sued by the government for anti-trust violations and acting as a monopoly to limit the marketplace. Microsoft was giving Internet Explorer away for free while Netscape’s and other browsers were commercial products. The Courts ruled that Microsoft had broken the law not only because of free IE, but because it had acted in concert with other computer companies to keep other browsers off the market.

            When Parlor was banned from the Apple Store and Google Store, those companies acted in concert. In addition, Amazon Web Services had a new agreement with Twitter for hosting Twitter. Parlor, which had seen a massive increase in traffic and was a threat to Twitter and accompanying ad revenues. In short, Twitter, Google, Apple and AWS acted in the exact same manner that Microsoft had done. The intent of the companies was the same – to keep Parlor out of the market.

            You mention private companies such as newspapers and your point is a good on. However, the government may regulate even private companies when it comes to speech if it serves a “compelling governmental interest.”

            A comparison to newspapers and other media outlets (radio, TV, etc) is applicable here because the FCC regulates the number of media outlets a single company may within a market have because the government had a compelling interest in the “marketplace of ideas” and one company controlling the market in one area is not a good thing. Such is the control of Twitter and Facebook. They control the market.

            Even if one wants to say “they are private companies and can do what they want,” what needs to be remembered is that the Government called Twitter and Facebook before them and said “what are you doing to get rid of certain posts?” In short the government was the driving factor behind the de-platforming of people with certain viewpoints. After all, the companies did not ban or control posts / tweets calling for riots this past summer. They did not ban or control posts / tweets calling for attacks on governmental buildings (local, state and federal.) The platforms allow posts / tweets from Hamas calling for violence against Israel and Jews. In what has to be considered a great irony, a tweet from Nancy Pelosi in 2017 claiming the 2016 election was “stolen” is still up.

            No, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Apple and AWS came after people at the bidding of the government to eliminate certain viewpoints.

            Finally, I did not write this, but I wish I had because it is perfect:

            “First they came for your Twitter and Facebook accounts and they said: “It’s not censorship, you can create your own app.”

            Then they came for your Google and Apple apps and they said: “It’s not censorship, create your own website.”

            And then they came for your Amazon web hosting: “It’s not censorship, create your own…”

            Create your own what? Internet? Country?”

            Your response was great but I wanted to add a little support and extension of some thoughts.

            • LC says:

              Out of curiosity, what do you (and, separately, Hondo) suggest as a remedy?

              I don’t love the current situation, but I also don’t see a viable alternative at the moment. No restrictions whatsoever will quickly put all such companies out of business, and if there are some restrictions, who decides what’s allowed?

              • gitarcarver says:

                LC,

                Out of curiosity, what do you (and, separately, Hondo) suggest as a remedy?

                I can’t and won’t speak for Hondo as he is clearly able to speak for himself.

                No restrictions whatsoever will quickly put all such companies out of business, and if there are some restrictions, who decides what’s allowed?

                I am not buying the idea that “no restrictions will put all such companies out of business” as the companies thrived without restrictions in the first place.

                Secondly, if the companies put restrictions in place, they should be consistent with their implementation. As of now, they are not and we gave examples that prove that point. That is troublesome on many levels.

                Third, if you are going to restrict posts / comments and people, those restrictions should be based on legality of statements and not ideas that people don’t like (including lies as lies too are protected speech.) The reason for this is that in a forum where all topics are allowed, what should be dealt with is illegal speech (obscenity, child porn, “true threats,” etc.)

                Lastly, you are speaking to someone whose website on which I collaborate was banned from Facebook, and our main Facebook account was “deplatformed.” We were accused of being “homophobic,” “racists,” “freedom hating,” and “rape blaming.”

                We were “reported” by two activists in the area who hated us and because of the accusations, we were deemed guilty and banned.

                We wrote a defense to Facebook and eventually posted it on the site. (You can read that defense here: http://raisedonhoecakes.com/ROH/homophobic-us-rape-blaming-freedom-hating-us/ )

                The point being that we were “de-platformed” based on lies. We don’t have an issue with the lies. We have a problem where those lies were taken as gospel and affected us on Facebook.

                We are for the marketplace of ideas to win the day and will always believe that.

                • LC says:

                  @gitarcarver:

                  Thanks for the reply – to clarify my first point about ‘no restrictions’, I meant simply that if companies like Twitter are forced to host content, without any restrictions. Or, even, any content that isn’t illegal. Basically, if Twitter is forced to host my content if it isn’t illegal, I can, in an afternoon, start uploading endless amounts of mundane video of my back yard, and that costs them resources. If a few people do it, they’ll soon run out of money, needing to buy more and more storage that’s not in any way helping them make money.

                  Fortunately, I think we both agree some restrictions are fine – we may just disagree slightly on which. Twitter has these in their ‘terms of service’, of course, and they enforce them… but, as you note, not perfectly.

                  I guess the question is, are they required to? What constitutes ‘good faith’ effort? I don’t know the law and you do, but I wonder how feasible it is to ensure restrictions are imposed consistently. How many people do they need to hire to do that, vs. to monitor ‘flagged’ tweets? The latter is much easier, of course. Does the government, or you or I, have the right to demand they hire more people to enforce this? With 500 million tweets a day, how many people does that take? I think ‘equal enforcement’ is a nice idea in principle, and absolutely impossible in practice, whereas a review of flagged content, while imperfect, might be the ‘least bad’ solution.

                  There is of course also the question of what to do when something is pending review – does a platform get to take it off immediately? Or wait for review? I know nothing of the law, but have a friend in that field dealing with a case involving ‘rendered’ child porn – no real children were involved, so it’s not illegal (yet), but it’s pretty terrible stuff. Given the current legality of it, what does a platform do? I don’t think the law is as nimble as a tech company, for better or worse.

                  I’m sorry to hear you had to deal with someone getting your site de-platformed at Facebook – I disagree with your beliefs, but have no problem with you stating them. It’s clear that companies should do better in this regard. But I’m not sure it’s a role for government regulation, vs the free market.

                  Anyway, I need to think more about this, too.

                  • gitarcarver says:

                    LC,

                    Thanks for the reply – to clarify my first point about ‘no restrictions’, I meant simply that if companies like Twitter are forced to host content, without any restrictions.

                    No one is forcing them to do anything. This is basic contract law. They make an offer “come post here!!” The poster agrees. There is consideration for both parties – the poster uses a service for free (no payment) and the service uses the poster’s content for revenue generation. People are simply asking that Twitter,Facebook, et al live up to the contract they offered and people accepted.

                    Fortunately, I think we both agree some restrictions are fine – we may just disagree slightly on which.

                    My “restrictions” parallel that of the First Amendment. Yours appear to be that of “content” or “viewpoint based” restrictions.

                    It is arguable that Twitter acts as a “public square” asking people to come and make their voices heard. As the “public square,” they should not have the right to say “we don’t like this voice….go away…..” while at the same time telling more people to come into the square to make their opinions heard.

                    As an example, here are the two tweets that resulted in the deplatforming of Trump:

                    – “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

                    – “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

                    I’ll make the same offer to you as I have to ever other person – show me where those tweets incite violence or insurrection.

                    There is not a person here that has not said or heard “I will not be disrespected.” Does that mean the speaker wants to commit violence? If your significant other said to you “you need to respect me,” are you going to call the police and try to convince the police that your significant other made a “true threat” against you?

                    I think ‘equal enforcement’ is a nice idea in principle, and absolutely impossible in practice, whereas a review of flagged content, while imperfect, might be the ‘least bad’ solution.

                    The problem is much more simple than that. Section 230 of the 1995 Communications Decency Act gives hosts immunity from conduct that arises from things on their site. The idea being exactly what you said – the sites cannot handle the volume of content. Yet Twitter by their own actions say they can moderate content. If that is the case, then why shouldn’t they be held accountable for what is on their servers?

                    To pull this out of the realm of political speech, when have you seen Twitter or Facebhook ban an account from a person convicted of Stolen Valor, which requires ill gotten gain or harm to others? Both sites are willing to accept content that perpetrates fraud or other illegal actions and that flies in the face of their own TOS which says they will not do that.

                    (There is a post below by me where Twitter allowed child porn as part of tweets and then when people complained, Twitter responded that they had reviewed the content and the images were not against their policy. This was not a case of something “slipping through the cracks.” This was wanton and willful disregard for the law. That cannot be classified as “good faith.”)

                    This is further highlighted by the number of tweets and posts actively calling for riots and destruction during this past summer associated with the BLM protests. Neither Twitter nor Facebook removed the posts from the violent left, and yet then turned around and attributed the calls for violence from the far right to all conservatives and people on the right.

                    Here’s something to ponder…..

                    If I and a friend enter a pair of identical contracts with you, do I not have the right to expect the same outcomes and benefits from that contract that my friend gets?

                    Should I be able to charge more for a product / service because I disagree with the political stance of a customer?

                    What people like me, Hondo and EX-Ph2 are saying asking is “in this day and age when we all are striving for equality, why are you okay with inequality when it comes to treatment of ideas?”

              • Hondo says:

                Can’t speak for gitarcarver, but I’ll offer my $0.02 on the matter.

                Regarding the issue of excessive and/or copyrighted content, two remedies already exist that in conjunction can IMO solve that issue.

                First: non-fair-use of copyrighted material has no First Amendment protection; such use without the permission of the copyright holder is already proscribed by Federal law. The TOS of virtually every ISP and other Internet service venue explicitly prohibits copyright abuse. Examples of copyrighted content that are clearly in violation of fair use can thus be summarily removed unless and until the posting individual can demonstrate the proper copyright authorizations.

                Further: while copyright protection is an issue, it apparently isn’t one the major tech firms seem to care that much about. That’s obvious from what you can find freely posted to YouTube et al. Indeed, copyrighted material abounds and only seems to get “pulled” (and, maybe, users banned on that basis) when someone – not always but often a copyright holder – complains.

                Excessive posting of non-copyrighted material is even easier. Virtually every TOS includes an “abuse of system” clause. Technical measures (e.g., quantity-triggered storage and/or bandwidth limitations) can also be implemented as needed to curtail this form of abuse of service.

                Regarding the privacy example you posit: that’s a harder one, since to my knowledge there’s no explicit and nationwide agreement or law on just what is and isn’t considered “fair game” information regarding the involuntary publication of true information regarding private individuals by private entities. TOS often address this, however, and making sure they do adequately address same is a good first step. Anti-SWATing laws (or similar) in some jurisdictions might also come into play – but those aren’t universally consistent (or even universally present, as far as I know). Don’t have much beyond that, but I’ll give that some more thought and revisit the issue if come up with something else.

                My real beef with Twitter/Facebook/et al is their hypocrisy. If they want to explicitly prohibit all speech that is offensive, fine. But that means they need to prohibit ALL offensive speech, not simply that with which they disagree on political grounds, and also identify by example what is and is not considered “offensive”.

                I’m also OK with them overtly and publicly stating that they won’t tolerate any opinions with which they disagree politically and will ban people based on that basis (and no, I’m not holding my breath waiting for such an admission). But if that last is the case, they need to be up-front and honest about it – and quit claiming to be a “communications channel” when they’re obviously acting as a propaganda mouthpiece for one side.

                • LC says:

                  Thanks for your thoughts – I’m on my way out the door, so I’ll give a reply to this when I can, though I covered a lot of the same ground above in reply to gitacarver. Definitely lots to consider in here, too.

              • Sandra says:

                Poland and Hungary are creating their own web servers due to Twitler, Goolag and Amazon’s actions. These two countries KNOW what Communist and fascist countries look like and act. I suggest that Conservative/libertarian sites get busy contacting these countries to set themselves up there. Elon Musk needs to be urged to dedicate some satellites and server farms to do an end run around the fascist Tim Cooke (Apple), Zuckerberg, Dorsey, et al. Tim Berners Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web is planning to “recreate” a new internet which is freer than the Corporate Fascist shit we have now.

              • gitarcarver says:

                LC,

                This is what I and others are talking about:

                Twitter refused to remove child porn because it didn’t ‘violate policies’: lawsuit

                Twitter refused to take down widely shared pornographic images and videos of a teenage sex trafficking victim because an investigation “didn’t find a violation” of the company’s “policies,” a scathing lawsuit alleges.

                The federal suit, filed Wednesday by the victim and his mother in the Northern District of California, alleges Twitter made money off the clips, which showed a 13-year-old engaged in sex acts and are a form of child sexual abuse material, or child porn, the suit states.

                The teen — who is now 17 and lives in Florida — is identified only as John Doe and was between 13 and 14 years old when sex traffickers, posing as a 16-year-old female classmate, started chatting with him on Snapchat, the suit alleges.

                Doe and the traffickers allegedly exchanged nude photos before the conversation turned to blackmail: If the teen didn’t share more sexually graphic photos and videos, the explicit material he’d already sent would be shared with his “parents, coach, pastor” and others, the suit states.

                Doe, acting under duress, initially complied and sent videos of himself performing sex acts and was also told to include another child in his videos, which he did, the suit claims.
                see also

                Eventually, Doe blocked the traffickers and they stopped harassing him, but at some point in 2019, the videos surfaced on Twitter under two accounts that were known to share child sexual abuse material, court papers allege.

                Over the next month, the videos would be reported to Twitter at least three times — first on Dec. 25, 2019 — but the tech giant failed to do anything about it until a federal law enforcement officer got involved, the suit states.

                Doe became aware of the tweets in January 2020 because they’d been viewed widely by his classmates, which subjected him to “teasing, harassment, vicious bullying” and led him to become “suicidal,” court records show.

                While Doe’s parents contacted the school and made police reports, he filed a complaint with Twitter, saying there were two tweets depicting child pornography of himself and they needed to be removed because they were illegal, harmful and were in violation of the site’s policies.

                A support agent followed up and asked for a copy of Doe’s ID so they could prove it was him and after the teen complied, there was no response for a week, the family claims.

                Around the same time, Doe’s mother filed two complaints to Twitter reporting the same material and for a week, she also received no response, the suit states.

                Finally on Jan. 28, Twitter replied to Doe and said they wouldn’t be taking down the material, which had already racked up over 167,000 views and 2,223 retweets, the suit states.

                “Thanks for reaching out. We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time,” the response reads, according to the lawsuit.

                “If you believe there’s a potential copyright infringement, please start a new report. If the content is hosted on a third-party website, you’ll need to contact that website’s support team to report it. Your safety is the most important thing, and if you believe you are in danger, we encourage you to contact your local authorities.”

                So while Twitter was going after content containing thoughts and ideas, they were allowing illegal child porn on the site.

                more here including law enforcement stepping in: https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/

                • Hondo says:

                  From Twitter’s TOS for the US/EFTA/UK, as of today:

                  We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment. Information regarding specific policies and the process for reporting or appealing violations can be found in our Help Center (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-report-violation#specific-violations and https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/suspended-twitter-accounts).

                  https://twitter.com/en/tos

                  And from their page called “The Twitter Rules”:

                  Child sexual exploitation: We have zero tolerance for child sexual exploitation on Twitter. Learn more.

                  https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

                  I would really love to hear Twitter’s rationale for saying, “We’ve reviewed the content, and didn’t find a violation of our policies . . . . “

                  • gitarcarver says:

                    I suspect that we will hear that “rationalization” in a trial or in a settlement.

                    Twitter has no legs to stand on here.

                    However, the case shows that Twitter was not reviewing the contents of posts within their own rules. This was not the failing of an algorithm. Twitter claims they reviewed the tweets and found them to be acceptable.

                    This blows in the face of LC’s comment on this issue. Twitter was more concerned with deleting the right than dealing with child porn.

                    • Hondo says:

                      Kinda looks that way to me.

                      Hope Twitter gets absolutely hammered.

                    • OWB says:

                      This is precisely why they should enjoy no protection from legal liability. They aided, abetted, and provided the means for illegal activity. Had any of us done something similar we would certainly (I hope) face prosecution.

                    • Hondo says:

                      And it gets even better: again from the Twitter Rules (same link as above):

                      Privacy

                      Private information: You may not publish or post other people’s private information (such as home phone number and address) without their express authorization and permission. We also prohibit threatening to expose private information or incentivizing others to do so. Learn more.

                      Non-consensual nudity: You may not post or share intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent. Learn more.

                      My take is that Twitter was probably OK, legally speaking – until they ignored the complaint for more than a month, then refused to take action IAW their own stated TOS and rules. At that point, well, I think Twitter “fornicated fido”.

                      Hopefully I’m correct. Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, and our legal system is designed to dispense what the law prescribes – which is not always true justice.

            • Hondo says:

              gitarcarver: thanks.

              One addition: while the government can regulate and/or restrict the actions of private companies and individuals, when it does so in a way that restricts free speech or any other fundamental right (e.g., a right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution) the courts have held for over 60 years that strict scrutiny is appropriate to determine whether the regulation or restriction is lawful. That in turn means that the governmental action must meet all three of the following criteria: (1) the government interest must be compelling, (2) the restriction must be narrowly tailored, and (3) the restriction must be the least restrictive measure available that achieves the desired end. Only if all three criteria are met is the government’s action allowable; otherwise, it is prohibited by the Constitution.

              • gitarcarver says:

                Hondo,

                Agreed on all points. It is so rare that the threshhold of “compelling interest” is met that I often don’t speak of the other two restrictions.

                In other words, your comment is spot on and I appreciate you filling in the gaps.

          • ArmyATC says:

            Excellent post! You let commieczar know that a spade is a spade and exposed the chink in his armor.

        • SFC D says:

          You advocate approved speech, that which meets YOUR definition of free speech. I’ve got news for you, sunshine. You don’t get to define words, regulate speech, or decide what’s appropriate. It’s best that you grab your medic bag and join your Antifa buddies. Shuttup and join the fight. Actions not words. You’re a fraud, a coward, and you should thank the moderators here on a daily basis for allowing you to spew your hypocritical trash.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      MAJOR MOONBAT aka “Commissar” YOU are living, breathing proof that liberalism is a Mental Disorder. YOU and your side spent the past four years spewing hate, vitriol and propaganda nonstop spewing phrases like “Dissent is patriotism” and now you and your ilk can’t wait to rat the likes of us out to whomever you can in hopes that we get shipped off for “reeducation” like in commie countries. FUCK YOU and your ilk you little bedwetting SHIT. If you were such the Officer you claim to have been, then why weren’t you allowed to stay in until you were eligible for retirement? Yes, I stayed in until my Military Retirement. If you were the LEO you claim to have been, than why only one year of Service in that capacity? It sounds to me like you didn’t make it past your Probationary Period. My point? It’s obvious to me and many others here that you’ve been an underperformer and underachiever nearly all your life and now you cling to your political cult for any acceptance you think that you can find and you seek any attention you can get. I bet you suck your thumb while having visions of labeling people like us as “traitors” and “Insurrectionists” for dissenting with the views of the party that cheated its way into power just like “Good Loyal German People” who followed that tyrant with the funny mustache.

    • Dave Hardin says:

      The foolish nature of liberals is that they destroy their own freedom by thieving that which was not theirs.

      They promise a chicken in every pot by destroying the hen house.

      Liberalism is the enemy of Free People, it is the rot of a selfish society and only embraced by the gullible.

      • Hondo says:

        Liberalism is the enemy of Free People, it is the rot of a selfish society and only embraced by the gullible.

        Very true, DH. But as someone once observed long ago: “God must love fools, he made so many of them.”

        • USMC Steve says:

          That however can be fixed kinetically, especially when they become dangerous.

          • Hondo says:

            Not generally recommended except under very specific circumstances.

            Stupidity per se isn’t legally a threat, and prison reputedly sucks.

      • MarineDad61 says:

        A chicken in every pot.
        Vote for Hammond Egger.
        Or,
        Don’t be a Muttonhead.
        Vote for Abel Lamb Stewer.

        1952 convention comedy by The Three Stooges.
        Funny then… Not so funny 68 years later.

      • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

        Well stated, Dave…

    • NHSparky says:

      And you should have read Cicero:

      “The evil was not in the bread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of the games which would serve to distract them from the other human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease.”

    • Penguinman000 says:

      You should take lessons in responsible government from sources other than movies.

  2. E4 Mafia '83-'87 says:

    The Left is all sorts of awful things, and we may agree or disagree on what exactly those things are…but they are at their worst consistent. Everything they accuse you of they are guilty of themselves. Every standard they want to hold you to they will not abide to. All they want is power. The power to tell you, me, and anyone what else what to think, what to believe, who to like, who to date, who not like, where to live, and so on. Oh, they also don’t want you to notice how they never subscribe to the any of the demands they give you…no, never, not even once.
    The” White Supremacist Boogeyman” isn’t even white anymore. It called multi-racial whiteness now. You see, anyone and I mean anyone, not marching in lockstep behind their banner of “Unity” aka blind obedience to people that disrespect you because you don’t live in a drug infested, crime ridden, corrupt city where stepping over the homeless, needles and piles of shit are the norm not matter the color of your skin is in their opinion “racist”. Listen to the hyenas on the news, in congress, and now in the White House. “If you didn’t vote for us, you’re wrong and we’re coming to get you!” Sitting members of Congress want a Committee for State Security (ironic, no?) type apparatus to seek out domestic threats…anyone that’s blindly obedient to the Party. Never mind crime exploding…The Party doesn’t care because they aren’t being robbed, murdered, car jacked or raped. Their subjects in the precious big cites are being mowed by the bushel every weekend, but the real threat is ‘wrong thinkers’ who want freedom. No, they’ll have their short-lived bliss. Remember Barry & Co lost The House, Senate, and Governor’s Mansions once they were actually in office and had to produce results instead of just saying words. They ‘Revolution’ eventually eats its own as even Robespierre was beheaded.

    • sbalm says:

      I gather that most all of us believe in a democracy. However, most large groups of people which includes countries, but in the past – tribes with territories but not necessarily borders – have the challenge of keeping large groups of people together as one semi-cohesive unit. This, unfortunately, involves limiting dissent with various levels of toleration of it.

      Communism does this by force and as long as people can carve out a meager life, there is not much opposition. They live by what psychology defines as “learned unresponsiveness.” A famous experiment is where you put rats in a cage and deliver shocks. The first couple of shocks have the rats go crazy and climb the walls of the cage as they exhibit escape behavior. After they accept their fate over time, they no longer even flinch when the shocks are delivered.

      In the 19th and 20th centuries in the U.S. we managed the population by the seeming illusion of exchange of ideas and influence but there was a principle of Yellow Journalism that came into play. Journalism at that time was solely in the hands of those that had a printing press and the means to distribute.

      We are now returning to a form of Yellow Journalism but in a form that almost everyone has the means to publish or have their voice heard. This, in my opinion, was a threat to the media elite. They wanted to control all messages and shape the narrative. At first, it seemed like they weren’t threatened because it came down to reputation and integrity – but those lines became blurred when the media elite circulated demonstrative misinformation. This in combination with having influencing alternative voices emerge.

      Now that the mainstream media have been encouraged by their ability to influence the election and narrative, they have become emboldened and there is much encouragement to influence and shape messages with alternative forms of media such as Facebook and Twitter. This was first manifested in “algorithms” but has now crossed over into outright censorship or being banned.

      Now it seems we are struggling between a new form of Yellow Journalism and alternative viewpoints and outlets that advocate for the exchange of ideas to influence mixed with expressing strong opposing viewpoints or outright criticism.

      The United States still remains an experiment in how to govern and keep a large population together. I say this with both hope and sadness – maybe it won’t be able to overcome a system where only a select few benefit and can skim the cream from the top, be bought out by other nations if only they keep the rest of their population in control … BUT I like to believe that the free exchange of ideas REALLY works. This is opposed to the illusion of free exchanges of ideas. If you saw “The Matrix” you know what I’m talking about.

      There was talk in the past of the belief that free press in China would emerge – it has to. This will manifest in stock information since the bulk of the population do not trust state-run media to deliver accurate information in regard to the free market. So, it may go underground at first, but these publications will emerge based on accuracy and influence.

      • Eric (The OC Tanker) says:

        I don’t now nor have I ever believed that the United States Of America is a ‘democracy”. It is a Representative Republic. A republic if we can keep it.

        Huston, we have a problem.

      • Green Thumb says:

        Interesting point.

  3. KoB says:

    Praise the Dave and pass up the ammunition. I stand shoulder to shoulder with you Good Sir!

    I do hope that there is no significance to the color of the thong in the Dream Catcher. Please tell us that it is NOT part of The Robe Ensemble!

  4. David says:

    Birds coming home to roost: I read that in Portland last night there were clashes between 150-some ‘protestors’ and police. The don’t want Biden, they hate police, they describe themselves as ‘ungovernable’… and they are the SAME folks who have been rioting all year. Enjoy ’em, Joe… they are your babies now.

    • Deckie says:

      He’ll just play the “blame the last guy” game.

      And people will be stupid enough to buy it.

      Ungovernable by choice? Put ‘em against a wall.

  5. 26Limabeans says:

    My Trump sign is half buried in snow on the lawn.
    Unlit Christmas lights wrapped around it.
    Even though there is a local zoning ordinance that dictates
    removal so many days after the election, I see a great
    opportunity to flesh out the local commies.
    One of these nights I’m going to plug it back in and let the
    three trail cams record the results.
    That’s my “dream catcher” and I’m gonna be a prick about it.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      Maybe electrify it like someone did to catch the boobs vandalizing his previous signs? I live in deep Red State America where the leftist moonbats will get their asses handed to them in pieces if they come and try to force us to their way of thinking, many of my neighbors own excavators!

    • Sandra says:

      Great idea! There are still a lot of Trump signs up in my area.

  6. RetiredDevilDoc8404 says:

    Dementia Joe and the Ho are in power and the Neanderthals in Portlujah aren’t happy? You mean unicorns aren’t shitting rainbows and sunshine now that the evil orange man is gone? I thought Joe and the Ho were going to heal everything, racism, the planet, the Wuhan Flu. Lars is all ramped up like a monkey whose banana got stolen. Seems like business as usual. Glad I can look at all the boobs who bought into Dementia Joe’s grift, smile and say “I sure as hell didn’t vote for the sumbitch, how’s it working out for you?” Yup, gonna be a long 4 years with those dillwads in power…

    • rgr769 says:

      His executive orders and plans have already likely cost over 50,000 workers to lose their jobs in the next several weeks. The XL pipeline cancellation will cost about 10,000 jobs alone on this side of the border. Buckle up boys and girls, you will be paying over $5.00 a gallon for gas in the next 18 months.

  7. LC says:

    This current trend of Corporations de-platforming and silencing people because they are not “thinking properly” has to be put to an end. Not only do I have a right to Free Political Speech, I have a right to its result, Free Political Listening.

    I greatly appreciate hearing a variety of opinions; it’s one of the reasons I come to this website. And I strongly support ‘free political speech’… but, regrettably, with some caveats. Reasonable political speech is totally fine, but some things do cross the line. Who defines ‘reasonable’? Well, that’s the problem.

    Imagine, for a moment, some anti-military liberal zombie gets ahold of the home address of the wife and kids of a soldier who is deployed overseas, and posts it on Twitter, tagging several suspected home-grown Jihadist accounts. Is this ‘free political speech’? Their political beliefs are that the US army are the terrorists, so it’s their politics, but it’s unreasonable behavior. If the platform bans them, is their free speech being squashed unfairly? How do you balance protecting people and allowing unfettered speech? Is it different if they encourage violence on them, vs. merely post the information, knowing what may happen?

    These aren’t easy questions, and it’s just one example of dozens where I’m inclined to think censorship is justified.

    And if anyone is on board with no restrictions whatsoever to what I can post on Facebook or Twitter, well, that’s the end of those companies. I could just upload as much content as possible -high resolution video, from anywhere- and they’ll struggle to respond to copyright notices, or just to host it, since all of that data takes infrastructure, which costs money. Surely in that case they’re allowed to block me, right?

    I tend to view this as somewhat akin to the restrictions most people approve of on the second amendment – as in, no restrictions on personal firearms, but I can’t own cruise missiles or NBC weapons.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      You missed the point entirely on this, LC.

      Disapproval of someone else’s politics and blocking that from your sight is a personal choice. You, the recipient, have the right to disagree and to shut off the flow of dialog. You do NOT have the right to tell the other person HE CAN’T BE HEARD BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT HE SAID.

      I might believe sincerely that Taro cards can forecast the future, and someone else can disagree with me. It doesn’t mean that either side is wrong. If it turns into a vicious squabble, yes, you can block your opponent. That’s not the same thing as deplatforming someone for having a different point of view.

      A difference of opinion is free speech. That is nowhere near the same thing as stalking someone in any form. Wrong analogy.

      • LC says:

        You do NOT have the right to tell the other person HE CAN’T BE HEARD BECAUSE YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT HE SAID.

        Yes, exactly, a reasonable difference of opinion is free speech – if person A thinks taxes are too low, and person B thinks taxes are too high, nobody is getting censored. If person A expresses that, in their opinion, sex with four-year olds should be fine, and goes into detail, and person B disagrees, that’s not a reasonable difference of opinion, and if I run a business where person A is spouting off that stuff, I feel it’s my right to ban them.

        The problem is, who defines ‘reasonable’? Is stoking angry crowds protected? If it’s a fanatic Imam who isn’t explicitly advocating terror, just ranting about how evil America is, and how they’ll have to pay, and has a ton of followers, is that allowed? When does it cross the line? When he posts suggested places for ‘divine punishment’? Again, not explicitly encouraging people to take action, just hand-wavy ‘act of god’ stuff?

        I don’t like this notion, but I think that unless we can codify what can and can’t be said -a violation of the first amendment, definitely, if it’s done by government!- then companies who build and maintain the infrastructure that provides that platform get a say in it.

        If you’ve got a better solution, I’m all ears. Who decides what’s objectionable?

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Well, if we MUST go philosophical on this, it goes back to Voltaire’s objection to the French government’s burning a book the seated politicians and pundits of le Sorbonne didn’t like, and perhaps further than that:

        Voltaire was the pen name of François-Marie Arouet who died in 1778. The earliest evidence of the saying appeared many years afterwards in the 1906 book “The Friends of Voltaire” by S. G. Tallentyre which was the pseudonym of historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

        Her book described an incident involving the French philosopher Claude-Adrien Helvétius who in 1758 published a controversial work titled “De l’esprit” (“On the Mind”). The book was condemned in the Parlement of Paris and by the Collège de Sorbonne. Voltaire was unimpressed with the text, but he considered the attacks unjustified. After Voltaire learned that the book by Helvétius had been publicly incinerated he reacted as follows according to Hall: 1

        ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that!

        His biographer, Evelyn Hall, came up with that overquoted catch phrase “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend [to the death] your right to say it.” It has also been erroneously attributed to Patrick Henry.

        What you are NOT doing is recognizing that The Offended Children, who think they are now in charge, don’t like it when someone else has an opinion or viewpoint or belief system different from theirs.

        The tantrums they throw include doxxing, verbal attacks that can only politely be termed bullying, and physical attacks as well, and other antisocial manifestations of the inability of these spoiled brats to accept even slight criticisms. If they can’t win they throw tantrums. I think we’ve had a year of that in 2020.

        If you and I have opposing views, that makes NEITHER of us right or wrong, just people who have differing opinions.

        But when has either of us tried to force something down the other person’s throat and made threats of violence for not accepting the difference of opinion?

        99% of what these overgrown kindergarteners think they know is baloney and you know that just as well as I do. What are they going to do next? Have book burnings and ban anything in literature, whether fiction or non-fiction, becau8se it offends their delicate sensibilities? Are they going to start public executions of anyone who DARES to disagree with their ignorant notions of what is and is not OK?

        Seriously, LC, this is NOT about stalking people online. That is stalking and is illegal, and you know it. Those people can be traced and tracked and punished for endangerment. They are nothing but thugs.

        This is about controlling what other people think and say and publish. Do you want to lose YOUR right to even slightly have a differing point of view and face punishment for it? Because you DO know what the next step is afterwards, don’t you?

        • LC says:

          Thank you for the history lesson – now, as I said, and posted to Hondo and gitacarver too, what do you suggest as a solution? if it isn’t a completely unfettered ‘right’ to some company’s infrastructure so you can say what you want, and it seems you’re not advocating that, then who determines what is and isn’t allowed?

          And fine, you don’t like the stalking example. Is that because it’s illegal? Or because you think law enforcement will handle it? Because if the former, there’s a wide range of interpretation on that – should every case go to court, and get a resolution, before such content is blocked? What if it’s blocked first, but then someone is found innocent? Do they get to sue for the restriction on their rights? And if it’s the latter, what of people on American platforms but in other countries, or hiding behind secure VPNs? If the law can’t reach them, can they be censored? Or is it just tough luck on those accounts?

          There are so many aspects of this that, as far as I can tell, lack a good solution; I’m all ears if you have one. You seem to think these companies want to rid themselves of all conservative voices, but the reality is, they want as many users as possible, to earn more money. That’s generally how businesses go. If conservatives violate their terms of service, which have nothing to do with politics, they get banned. If liberals do, they do too.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Oh, for God’s sake, will you snap out of it?

          Do you know why Bernath is dead? He spent a year in a jail in Virginia for stalking and harassment. The stuff I took over to the police station is still in a file over there. He included my neighbors in his predations on me. What the hell is wrong with you that you think there’s even a minor excuse for not referring to stalking as stalking, and yes, it is illegal. Your quibbling is convenit ineptias. You don’t have even a smidge of an argument there. “…wide range of interpretation…?” Where is your backup for that? Why did Bernath spend a year in jail if there’s some “wide range of interpretation” on that subject?

          And you’ve never heard of blocking contact by someone who is making a nuisance of himself? What planet are you living on?

          The day that caller ID and answering machine/voicemail recordings were added to phone lines put a binder on that stuff, but it now appears online and it is referred to as stalking and also as doxing, and it is also illegal, but people do it, anyway.

          Here you go: doxing
          search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet, typically with malicious intent.
          “hackers and online vigilantes routinely dox both public and private figures”
          Definitions from Oxford Languages

          What planet are you living on, anyway? Bernath was stalking and doxing the Shipleys to get money out of them, in case you’re behind on things. He also included many other people, e.g., Jonn Lilyea and little old me and a bunch of others in his nefarious phone lawsuits, and it backfired on him. He was also stalking my neighbors. All that stuff is over at the police station. Now he’s dead and he’d better stay dead.

          What part of that crap don’t you understand? Crawl out of your cave, willya?

          If Twitter and Facebook and other public platforms take money from people – and they do – to use their facilities, then they should be adult enough to accept differing points of view.
          Here are Twitter’s advertising rates:
          CPC $0.38 per click
          CPM $6.46 per 1000 impressions
          CPE $1.35 per engagement
          Here is the cost to use Twitter as a customer:
          The cost to promote a tweet is between $0.50 to $2.00 for each first action. The average falls around $1.35 each time a Twitter user clicks, replies, or retweets your tweet.Aug 3, 2020

          How Much Does It Cost To Advertise On Twitter – rialto…www.rialtomarketing.com

          Any questions about that?

          I haven’t bothered looking up Facebook’s rates, but it’s used as an advertising platform by a lot of companies to promote their products.

          The point is, if you are paying for a service – something YOU don’t seem to understand – and the service provider decides it doesn’t like you because of your personal views on politics, and shuts you off, that is a bad business practice. It also costs the provider money and that cost may increase exponentially if enough people abandon the service provider. Is that simple enough for you?

          If you don’t understand that, get out of the closet you live in and pay attention to the real world.

          There are only two things that matter in business: money and how much can WE THE COMPANY get?

          Twitter’s share price dropped substantially last week because it deplatformed Trump and people dropped their accounts with Twitter. I don’t give a crap whether you like him or not. If he paid for his account, he’s the one who decides whether or not to shut it down, NOT TWITTER.

          Twitter’s and Facebook’s hamhanded approach to making such decisions without consulting the customer about it, or even warning them, are the reasons I have nothing to do with so-called online info publishers like that. They are nothing but print online versions of the telephone companies, with delusions of self-importance about their right to control content. And, no, they do NOT post anything up front to alert potential customers about their “rules”. Period.

          • HtC says:

            Donald Trump didn’t pay for his Twitter account. Companies/people only pay to have “promoted” Tweets (basically ads that get inserted into users’ feeds) but anyone can look at or post to Twitter without paying a nickel.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            I just copied the info provided online.

  8. JustPlainJason says:

    I’m going to say this in hopes you will understand, Tump doesn’t give a shit about you. Clinging to conspiracy theories that he helped spread during his time in office is not going to help.

    If you want to be a conservative and believe that less government is the right answer I’m happy for you and I will gladly discuss things with you and how we can make our country a better place. If you are going to be whiney punk asses then you are no better than the people who cried and wore pink pussy hats when Trump won the elesction in 2016.

    I do not think that Biden was the best choice for president, but I sure as shit trust him a hell of a lot more than chucklefuck Trump.

    • Green Thumb says:

      Damn, JPJ.

      You need to get a little flavor.

      • JustPlainJason says:

        I took a break posting here after Jonn died, and I come back it seems this place has been overrun by bitchy Trump worshippers. Biden may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but for fuck’s sake plugs at least pretends he gives a shit. Hell I would give odds his crackhead son could take out both Don jr and Eric at the same time.

        As far as the republican party? They hitched their wagon to Trump as fast as the winds blew his way. Now that he is going down rats are fleeing from that sinking ship. I’ll give some of you credit, at least you are consistent. I haven’t liked Trump since I was a kid in the 80s and I still don’t like the guy.

        Trump did do one thing, he made me examine what kind of person I was and realize that I didn’t want to be a part of his Republican party.

        • UpNorth says:

          ” Biden may not be the sharpest tool in the shed”, sharpest tool? No, he’s a handle with no tool of any kind on it.
          As for Joey’s crackhead son, they’d have to pry him off of his underage niece before he’d attend any “take out”.

        • Sandra says:

          Oh, another cockroach coming out the woodwork to proclaim he “can’t be a Republican anymore”, well, join the party, PAL. Only a truly morally bankrupt individual can overlook the record low unemployment, securing of our borders, removal of bureaucratic red tape, withdrawal from the Iran Deal fiasco, the lopsided, fake Paris Agreement, the take on of China’s spying, cheating, murder and suppression of their population and proclaim they “never liked Trump since they were a little kid”. Where the F*CK is your head?

          • justplainjason says:

            You must smoke the same crack that Hunter smoked, because if you really believe any of that bullshit you done went and smoked yourself stupid.

        • timactual says:

          “Trump did do one thing, he made me examine what kind of person I was and realize that I didn’t want to be a part of his Republican party.”

          And you wanted to be a part of that party before Trump? Evidently all you want is someone who ” at least pretends he gives a shit”, which pretty much describes the Republican party, too.

          When you set the bar that low it takes a lot of chutzpah to berate others for not having high enough standards.

    • Mike Gunns says:

      Wait two weeks.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Oh, I’m just waiting with bated breath to find out how long it will take, who has no idea where money comes from, no matter what you think, to spend us into bankruptcy so heinously deep that the Chinese have to bail us out.

      • justplainjason says:

        Have you consulted the spending over the previous 45 years? At this point its not really a question of spending, its a question of how much and on what. As long as I have been alive conservatives and liberals have loved to spend its just on what pet projects.

        • NHSparky says:

          45? Try double that.

          Lots of FDRs New Deal policies were nothing more than vote buying programs, and damned if they didn’t work.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Well, jason, two financial analysts made the same forecast LAST UEAR, that this recession will last until mid-2024 before it even faintly starts a correction.

          Are you prepared to deal with no raises, increases in your insurance coverages, and/or possible taxation on your IRA of 401K, even if you aren’t using them yet?

          Just want to know if you do understand what that means, that’s all.

          • justplainjason says:

            What fantasy land have you been living in? 3% has been considered a good raise for 12 years. My wife had to drop me from her insurance two years ago and I depend on the VA for all my coverage. A huge percentage of the jobs that were lost over the last year aren’t comng back.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            No fantasy here at my end of the block.

            It is worse than that in some areas. How about 1.3% raise for Social Security recipients, and none for tip earners at all?

            • justplainjason says:

              Maybe the people who need the money the most could use a bit of a break and possibly a little extra? People who struggle every day to get by?

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              That is a large portion of the population, and it is people who will not benefit from a minimum wage of $15/hr.
              I know what you’re talking about. Don’t think I don’t. I have neighbors who are scraping by and trying to be optimistic.

              • justplainjason says:

                I think $15 an hour is joke, but this is an issue that should have been adressed a long time ago. Large companies like Wal-Mart subsidize their labor and expenses on tax payers backs already. A lot of issues that have existed over the past have just had a magnifying glass put on them over the last year. How is it that a friend who runs a small business couldn’t get a PPP loan, but a guy like Joel Olsteen could. This should highlight that the system needs to be looked at and why the people who needed the money didn’t get it.

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  If you tell businesses they have to pay $15 an hour, they won’t hire the $7 worker at $15. They will do without or add hours to the others.

                  That means fewer hires.

                  Also, any business that is just barely making it, now won’t. Those jobs are now zero an hour.

                  Every time they do this, this reliably happens. Yet the same lies get told.

                  Why? Because Union contracts typically specify some dollar amount over “prevailing wage” for all hourly. Thus if you add $8 to prevailing, all those union bosses get their cut of the across the board mandated union raises. Of course, that doesn’t bother them that they fucked the little guy starting out. They got theirs.

                  Of course, when those absurd union wages cause firms to offshore the jobs, the union bosses still have theirs.

                  It’s another Donk scam. All about the corrupt big business called “labor unions” .

                  But yeah “fight for 15” so some union plutocrats can sell your vote to the donks and your job to illegals, automation, or China.

                  • justplainjason says:

                    Did you just glaze over and spout unrelated garbage?

                    $15 is nonsense. Jobs aren’t coming back. We need to look to new ideas. If nothing else we as a nation need to lean into automation to bring manufacturing back to the US as a part of a national security asset. We as a nation cannot compete with other countries that already subsidize their labor doing things the way we do. Our mindset needs to change. If we explore UBI and funding it through the monetization of data, or taxation of automation I don’t know I don’t have the answers. I am just an asshole on the internet.

            • timactual says:

              What’s your point? 1.3% is the increase in the cost of living from what I have read. Why should they get anything more? And what does the government have to do with tips?

    • timactual says:

      ” Tump doesn’t give a shit about you.”

      And I don’t give a shit about him. So what? When I hire an employee I don’t much care if he likes me or not. I just want him/her to do what they were hired for. Trump did (more or less). Biden won’t. Simple enough?

      • Just Lurkin says:

        Yes exactly, Trump often had me biting my lip, but he had (has) the same enemies as I do-a thoroughly corrupt class of “elites” who put their own interests ahead of those of the nation at every turn. Biden is the puppet of those insider “elites”, you can’t reasonably expect any meaningful reform from him.

        • timactual says:

          “Trump often had me biting my lip, but he had (has) the same enemies as I do-”

          You made the mistake of actually listening to him.

          And, of course, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

  9. bmorgan says:

    So, I’m trying to follow all of this but I have a practical question, please.

    In the near future, will I have to attend diversity training at work that will make me more aware of my whiteness and its damaging effect on society?

    Asking for a fr– well, uh, no… I’m asking for me.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      You can always tell the instructor you wouldn’t like him/her/it if s/he/it were white and wait for the reaction.

    • Hondo says:

      If you work for the Federal government, yes (one of the EOs he signed yesterday mandates that “training” be resumed). If you work for a Federal contractor, I’d guess yes as well – but I could be wrong about the last.

      Other employers? No idea.

      • bmorgan says:

        I think I can sit there and take the class but if we break up into groups and do case discussions it could get challenging.

        Then, I wonder if we have to sign a pledge or something or just signing the attendance roster will do.

        I’m trying to look for a silver lining in taking this training. Instead of the tried and proven “I got several gay/black friends…” I can then say “I’ve had the training.”

      • Green Thumb says:

        I wonder if all workers have to attend? If the training is predominately targeted to white employees, people of color might feel uncomfortable being in the same room.

        I am also going to assume that this training covers treatment to all federally-recognized protected classes given to all federally-recognized protected classes as well. This would also include Veterans.

        If they (any group) were excluded, that is a problem. If they (any group) are asked to go into another room or take another type of training, that’s a problem. If you are biracial and state that you consider yourself part of multiple cultures and they make you take one or the other, that’s a problem. If you are biracial and state that you refuse to take said training as you find it derogatory and against EEO standards, that could be a major problem.

        Interesting to see if any lawsuits pop up on this moving forward.

        • bmorgan says:

          And what if I’m a white male but identify as a black female? Would I be in the right room?

          I jest but you are correct – “inclusiveness” is a slippery slope. I also bet that if you question the need for the training, you will be told that you are the reason for the training.

          • OWB says:

            My first question might be, “So, am I supposed to notice your ethnicity and/or gender? I didn’t, so will you enlighten me just how whatever you are is supposed to influence how I am supposed to perceive what you plan to say?”

            • timactual says:

              “, am I supposed to notice your ethnicity and/or gender?”

              Yes and no.
              Yes–If you don’t notice you are marginalizing and oppressing them by denying their _______.
              No—If you notice their differences you are labeling them as an “other”, a clear act of discrimination.

              Face it, you are guilty. Period. Kafka would be proud.

              • Green Thumb says:

                Thats why many folks use pronouns.

                Although they can be even more confusing.

                Like a fat transgender woman using “them”.

                Call me crazy, but I think some folks almost use it as a set up.

                • timactual says:

                  Just make sure you use the right pronouns. Using the wrong ones isn’t a felony–yet, but there can be repercussions.

            • SFC D says:

              I notice ethnicity and gender. I just don’t care about it. I’m more concerned with what you do than what you look like or how you’re plumbed. You know, that content of character thing.

          • Green Thumb says:

            They could send in Rachel Dolezal under cover to report on the validity and effectiveness of the training.

            Word has it she still needs a job….

      • NHSparky says:

        Yup, even in private industry. Bias training is given quite often.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      You could tell the instructor that your a black man trapped in a white man’s body…

  10. borderbill says:

    I wonder how man hours are wasted on: A) reading anything “commu-sar” writes, and B) responding to same.

  11. borderbill says:

    Alas! Should have proofread first: “how many hours”

    • Mike Gunns says:

      Commissar’s comments don’t take that long to read. All you have to know is he is a commie and anything he writes is going to be wrong based on the illiteracy he’s being taught at taxpayer’s expense at that bastion of illiterate political thought, Berzerkley.

      • Deckie says:

        He talks it up because of Nobel Prize receipients who have attended… only one problem – no one gives a fuck about that. That matters to people like watching celebrities dutch rudder each other at the Oscars matters. Not. One. Bit.

        And handing it to a man just for being black and the president is further proof.

  12. Honor and Courage says:

    Biden’s current picks for Cabinet positions looks like a moveie cast for a Roman Orgy Film.
    Men Competing in womens sports! Amen & Awoman= Amoron

    What do you think 🤔 One mind is all you have! Don’t loose it.