Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Saturday, November 20. 2021Saturday morning linksWho gets into Harvard College? Do Vaccines Stop People From Getting And Transmitting COVID? UT Austin research program teaches white 4-year-olds about ‘anti-Black racism’ CA Teachers Urge Recruiting Kids Into LGBT Clubs Professor In Virginia Put On Leave After Admitting He’s Attracted To Children, Writing Book Trying To “De-Stigmatize” It… "F**k This Murderer": Left Becomes Unhinged After Rittenhouse Acquitted 10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked: Devine NY Times: Why are Democrats such incredible hypocrites? “It’s For the People” – Pelosi Defends Tax Cuts for Mega-Rich in Blue States – 2nd Largest Ticket Item in Democrat Spending Bill Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Why wouldn't Pelosi defend tax cuts for the rich as being "for the people"? They've been gas-lighting us for years about what they're doing and it's just more of the same here. This massive spending increase is already paid for so it's not going to cost a dime and besides it's an investment in our infrastructure and throwing an additional supply of free money on an economy that already has an over-supply of free money actually produces deflationary pressures on the economy. All lies that insult the intelligence of anybody with more than two brain cells.
Jerryskids: This massive spending increase is already paid for so it's not going to cost a dime and besides it's an investment in our infrastructure and throwing an additional supply of free money on an economy that already has an over-supply of free money actually produces deflationary pressures on the economy.
Much of the Build Back Better bill is paid for, so that portion wouldn't be considered "throwing an additional supply of free money." That would be the Trump tax cuts. For comparison, here are CBO estimates: Infrastructure, $256 billion Build Back Better, $250 billion Trump tax cuts, $1.9 trillion America loves to spend, but doesn't like to pay the bills. The appropriate counter-cyclical policy is to borrow during recessions and pay down debt during expansions. Bush cut taxes during an expansion without matching spending cuts, ran up the debt leaving the U.S. without reserves for emergencies, then left the economy in shreds. Republicans resisted deficit spending during the Obama administration, leading to a slow recovery, at a time when investment in infrastructure would have made the most sense due to the need for stimulus and a ready supply of untapped labor and resources. Today, the U.S. would be enjoying the benefits of that improved infrastructure during the current recovery, mitigating supply chain problems and acting to limit inflation. Trump cut taxes during an expansion without matching spending cuts, ran up the debt leaving the U.S. without reserves for emergencies, then left the economy in shreds. Chinese traditions says that the best time to plant a tree {invest in infrastructure} was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Tax cuts generally are a good thing and lead to more jobs and of course the ability of citizens to keep more of their own money. I think it is a mistake to disparage tax cuts. Imagine a world where you were allowed to keep 100% of what you earned. Wouldn't that be a good thing?
On the other hand higher taxes generally reduce investments and jobs while at the same time encouraging people with the money that could be invested in job creation to take it somewhere else. Rarely do tax increases ever return the revenue that was claimed it would produce BUT always produces the negative impact on the economy and jobs that was not discussed. There is a tax increase I could get behind that would help our economy and our jobs; higher taxes on foreign products. If a product like a car for example, is 40% made in Japan or Germany than tax that 40%. If it is 100% made in another country than tax that 100%. I think a good rate of taxation on foreign goods would be 50% of retail price paid by the purchaser. My suggestion to fix our own taxes is a flat tax of 10% on all income of any source and a graduated tax on higher incomes to 20%. Change the property taxes to be more equitable so it isn't based on the value of the home but simply on potential occupancy. For example a three bedroom home should be $1000 a year while a large apartment building would be $1000 X the number of units. Also abolish state and city income taxes and restrict them to sales taxes. OneGuy: Tax cuts generally are a good thing and lead to more jobs and of course the ability of citizens to keep more of their own money.
Tax cuts without associated spending cuts act as a stimulus, that is, economic activity is increased at the expense of wealth. This can be good when the economy is working below capacity, when there is underutilized resources, including labor. But when the economy is working near capacity, then it simply causes money to chase money causing inflation and debt. OneGuy: Imagine a world where you were allowed to keep 100% of what you earned. Wouldn't that be a good thing? No, because then there would be no government, no public infrastructure and no national defense. Whatever wealth there might be would be enslaved to foreign or domestic powers that would inevitably rise in the anarchy you envision. OneGuy: On the other hand higher taxes generally reduce investments and jobs while at the same time encouraging people with the money that could be invested in job creation to take it somewhere else. All taxes and spending have a distorting effect on markets. However, to take a simple example, the superhighway system more than paid for itself with increased economic activity over generations. Keep in mind that the U.S. is in competition with other countries, so if the U.S. fails to invest in infrastructure, they will inevitably suffer slower economic growth and be at a competitive disadvantage. “Tax cuts without associated spending cuts act as a stimulus” yada, yada, yada…
Oh please, get a clue. You have effectively made the argument that taxes are essential for a good economy. I.E. if we took 20% of your income the world is a better place and if we take 30% the world gets even better, ad infinitum Karl Marx is laughing at you for being such a useful idiot. Obviously if it were possible the best possible economy would be if the government took 0% of our money. “No, because then there would be no government” You are saying that if there were no income tax then there couldn’t possibly be a government and all the good things government bring. And yet there are states with no income tax and last time I checked they had a government. “All taxes and” government “spending have a distorting effect on markets.” On that we agree.
#1.1.2.1.1
OneGuy
on
2021-11-20 15:03
(Reply)
OneGuy: You have effectively made the argument that taxes are essential for a good economy. I.E. if we took 20% of your income the world is a better place and if we take 30% the world gets even better,
Taxes are essential for a modern economy, because without taxes there is no government, no public infrastructure, no public courts to resolve disputes, no national defense. It doesn't follow, however, that if 10% tax is good that 60% tax is better. Rather, there is a balance between public and private spheres. Care to take a guess at the balance struck in the most successful modern economies? OneGuy: Obviously if it were possible the best possible economy would be if the government took 0% of our money. Obviously, if it were possible, the best possible economy would be one based on pixie sprinkles.
#1.1.2.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-20 15:13
(Reply)
All "successful modern economies" are in transition to bankruptcy and war. Read history. If what you said and believe were true than Rome would still be the biggest strongest country/economy around. All governments increase taxes until they destroy their own economy, i.e. kill the goose that lays golden eggs. Most of what our government does harms us and is not necessary. Most of what government does that is essential they do extremely poorly and it costs 2-10 times what it would cost the private sector to do. The government is our albatross our job is to struggle to stay alive until they kill us off.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1
OneGuy
on
2021-11-20 22:20
(Reply)
OneGuy: If what you said and believe were true than Rome would still be the biggest strongest country/economy around.
Huh? Rome was an empire that relied on slave labor, not a modern economic system. OneGuy: All governments increase taxes until they destroy their own economy, The U.S. has generally reduced taxes over the last generation. What they haven't done is reduce associated spending, leading to high deficits. Not all modern economies have this problem. For comparison: Country, debt as % of GDP (2019) U.S., 128 U.K., 95 Germany, 70 Norway, 40 OneGuy: Most of what government does that is essential they do extremely poorly and it costs 2-10 times what it would cost the private sector to do. The private sector won't build freeways on their own. OneGuy: The government is our albatross our job is to struggle to stay alive until they kill us off. Yet, above you argued that any tax led to Marxism, then advocated for a 10% flat tax. Are you a Marxist?
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 08:48
(Reply)
“The U.S. has generally reduced taxes over the last generation.”
Yes! Every time we get an intelligent, educated non-communist government we cut taxes. Then the communist steal the elections and we get higher taxes. “The private sector won't build freeways on their own.” So, you’ve never driven back East in NY and Mass and half a dozen other states? Toll roads baby! But, since you brought up roads it is another example of government malfeasance. They have siphoned off the gas taxes for non-road projects which requires, wait for it… more and higher taxes. Kinda proves my point doesn’t it? As for Rome, please, I beg you, take some history classes and put down that CRT text book.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1
OneGuy
on
2021-11-21 09:44
(Reply)
OneGuy: Every time we get an intelligent, educated non-communist government we cut taxes. Then the communist steal the elections and we get higher taxes.
Federal Revenue as Share of GDP. OneGuy: So, you’ve never driven back East in NY and Mass and half a dozen other states? Toll roads baby! Take the New York State Thruway: The New York State Thruway Authority, a public-benefit corporation, was established by the New York State government in 1950. Authority for the State to guarantee the authority's bonds was approved by voters by constitutional amendment in 1951. The board of directors are nominated by the State governor and confirmed by the State Senate. Property to build the thruway was acquired through the State's power of eminent domain. Z: Rome was an empire that relied on slave labor, not a modern economic system. OneGuy: As for Rome, please, I beg you, take some history classes . . . Are you suggesting ancient Rome was a modern economic system?
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 10:44
(Reply)
"Are you suggesting ancient Rome was a modern economic system?"
For it's time all things considered it was bigger than the U.S. economy. Are you suggesting Rome did not overtax their population AND spend too much on welfare??? Read Caesar and Christ by Will Durant.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
OneGuy
on
2021-11-21 15:07
(Reply)
OneGuy: For it's time all things considered it was bigger than the U.S. economy. Are you suggesting Rome did not overtax their population AND spend too much on welfare???
Your argument isn't clearly stated. We thought you were arguing with the claim that the most successful modern economies are mixed systems. Perhaps your argument of is of the form fascists had taxes, America has taxes, so America is fascist. This, even though you argued both sides: that taxes inevitably lead to Marxism, and that the U.S. should have a flat tax. Imperial Rome wasn't a democratic society or a modern economy. Sure, some democratic societies tend to spend more than they should. But others don't. Nor is the U.S. debt unsustainable. The problem is political, not economic.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 16:09
(Reply)
Now you don't know what "fascist" is.
I did argue both sides. Excessive taxes are destructive of freedoms and nations. A flat tax of 10% to 20% would be bearable and the revenues would allow the federal government to accomplish everything it is supposed to as long as it kept it's nose out of what it is not supposed to do. Pretty simple.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
OneGuy
on
2021-11-21 18:24
(Reply)
OneGuy: Now you don't know what "fascist" is.
Fascism have many variants, but is generally defined as a "far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy." Britannica notes that fascism exhibits "extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: 'people’s community'), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation." OneGuy: Excessive taxes are destructive of freedoms and nations. And we agree with that! So is too little tax. OneGuy: A flat tax of 10% to 20% would be bearable and the revenues would allow the federal government to accomplish everything it is supposed to as long as it kept it's nose out of what it is not supposed to do. Social Security alone is 12.4% and is insufficient to meet obligations going forward. You might suggest eliminating Social Security, but most Americans want Social Security, they just don't like paying for it. And they have been repeatedly and falsely promised that tax cuts would pay for themselves through increased revenues. Hence, the problem of ballooning deficits.
#1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-22 08:27
(Reply)
Ther USA was ruin on excise taxes until the 20th century. We can do it again.
#1.1.2.1.2
Publius Americanus
on
2021-11-22 08:30
(Reply)
Sort of, you wish, maybe, maybe not ... all up to Trump "left he economy in shreds" Not from where I was standing. Clearly state and local governments rightly or wrongly closed down the economy.
Government with money for emergencies; now that's a bad idea. And emergencies like the weather. Money for emergencies should be in private hands. Show me the successful planned economy. In Cuba I would be dead, in USSR in jail, ; so I am hard to convince. SF jeff: Trump "left he economy in shreds" Not from where I was standing.
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/11/23/USAT/81f991c7-abcb-48f5-9bf6-b666a4bbbe23-target_toilet_paper.jpg SF jeff: Government with money for emergencies; now that's a bad idea. So, you are against government paying down debt to allow flexibility when the ineviable emergency occurs. SF jeff: Show me the successful planned economy. All successful modern economies are mixed systems, with social safety nets and robust markets. "We need more families"
Then they need to stop sodomizing men in divorce court. Not to mention that bringing kids into the world these days is lunacy. What I don't understand is how all the demonrats stick together and vote for / approve this nonsense.
Isn't there even 1 - or really 20-30% - who think this bill is very bad for the country? I can only conclude they are all somehow getting paid off and / or reaping some sore of hidden benefit - and the country as a whole be damned. That is depressing. maddog: What I don't understand is how all the demonrats stick together and vote for / approve this nonsense. Isn't there even 1 - or really 20-30% - who think this bill is very bad for the country?
Support for Build Back Better by political affiliation: Democrats: 89-6 Independent: 54-35 Republican: 33-61 All likely voters: 61-32 Likely voters strongly support the bill even when informed of how revenue will be raised, and likely voters also support individual provisions of the bill. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2021/11/3/voters-continue-to-support-the-build-back-better-agenda QUOTE: Do Vaccines Stop People From Getting And Transmitting COVID? Do seatbelts prevent injuries and deaths? Nope. An excellent analogy. Safety measures are seldom absolute, but real safety improvements can be obtained.
You may now return to your previous insulting but evidenceless assertions.
#4.1.1.1.1
Assistant Village Idiot
on
2021-11-20 12:11
(Reply)
Just zipped right by, did it?
#4.1.1.1.1.1
Zachinoff
on
2021-11-20 13:41
(Reply)
Imagine if the simple act of putting on your seat belt killed you. If your seat belt was deadly would the government still mandate it? The data is slow in coming (almost as though the people who collect the data are hiding something) but the indications are that 10's of thousands of people have been killed by the vaccine worldwide. Now, I'm now expert but I don't think anyone has been killed by just putting their seat belt on. Just saying.
JustMe: Imagine if the simple act of putting on your seat belt killed you.
Wearing a seatbelt can cause injury or death in rare situations.
#4.1.1.2.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-20 15:17
(Reply)
Another reach by the KiddieZ.
Red Herring alert!!!
#4.1.1.2.1.1
Zachinoff
on
2021-11-20 18:53
(Reply)
You had to prevaricate. I don't blame you, you are wrong and don't want to admit it. Seatbelts don't kill you just by putting them on. The covid vaccine does, not everyone of course but an incredible number of people have died from the covid vaccine. I believe that the magic and elusive number of deaths is actually greater than all previous deaths from all previous vaccines combined. We don't know, exactly, because the government is actively keeping that information from us while they simultaneously force people to get the vaccine.
#4.1.1.2.1.2
OneGuy
on
2021-11-20 22:27
(Reply)
OneGuy: Seatbelts don't kill you just by putting them on.
It's an analogous situation. The government mandates wearing seatbelts when in a moving vehicle. A small number may be injured by the seatbelt, but thousands of lives are saved. The government mandates vaccination to work in crowded offices. A small number may be injured by the vaccine, but thousands of lives are saved. OneGuy: I believe that the magic and elusive number of deaths is actually greater than all previous deaths from all previous vaccines combined. You can believe in magic if you want, but you have no evidence to support your belief.
#4.1.1.2.1.2.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 08:57
(Reply)
No, 10's of thousands of people have not been killed by the vaccine worldwide. You are believing crazy people. Not much the rest of us can do to fix that.
And by the way, I spent my entire career dealing with crazy people and what can be explained to them, and what they simply won't accept because they have read some guy who (wink, wink, nod, nod) knows better. The distinction between psychotic people and ones who are simply culturally paranoid fools is one I can actually discuss at great length. Those who who are awake understand what is wrong with dreaming. Those who are adults understand what is wrong with children's reasoning. Those who are sane understand what is missing in psychotic reasoning. Basic CS Lewis and GK Chesterton. Looking at who understands whom is valuable in reasoning. I can explain your reasoning precisely. You cannot reciprocate. I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I can usually tell you who is, very quickly.
#4.1.1.2.2
Assistant Village Idiot
on
2021-11-20 19:01
(Reply)
Move on, nothing to see here folks.
https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/home/topics/acs/acute-coronary-syndrome-acs-biomarkers-mrna-covid19-vaccine/
#4.1.1.2.2.1
Maypo
on
2021-11-20 20:14
(Reply)
Maypo: https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/home/topics/acs/acute-coronary-syndrome-acs-biomarkers-mrna-covid19-vaccine/
Gundry is pushing pseudoscientific diets for money.
#4.1.1.2.2.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 09:00
(Reply)
https://www.fastrope.com/week-48-cdc-vaers-is-now-reporting-20224-covid-19-vaccine-deaths/. This looks like 10's of thousands to me.
#4.1.1.2.2.2
justMe
on
2021-11-20 22:31
(Reply)
justMe: This looks like 10's of thousands to me.
What's that at the bottom of the chart you cited? Hmm. QUOTE: Note: Submitting a report to VAERS does not mean that healthcare personnel or the vaccine cause or contributed to the adverse event (possible side effect).
#4.1.1.2.2.2.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 09:04
(Reply)
Thank you for pointing out that quote, I was hoping you would. Classic doublespeak wouldn't you say? Was that quote included in all the VAERS reporting prior to covid vax???
I also assume that the same thing was true with all the other vaccinations, that is they just report the negative interactions they don't investigate them. And yet when you count ALL the deaths from ALL the previous vaccines over ALL the years vaccines have been give we still have more reported deaths reported from covid than ALL the others vaccines combined. Funny! Huh! I mean you would almost think that a scientist would say; "hmmm, maybe something is going on here!" But Noooo. The scientific community is silent! But wait, they aren't silent. In fact numerous scientists and doctors have spoken up! BUT the government and media silences them!!! Almost like we were in some kinda communist country, LOL, right? Funny...
#4.1.1.2.2.2.1.1
JustMe
on
2021-11-21 09:52
(Reply)
JustMe: Was that quote included in all the VAERS reporting prior to covid vax???
QUOTE: November 2017: Are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines? No. VAERS accepts reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging the cause or seriousness of the event. Some adverse events might be caused by vaccination and others might be coincidental and not related to vaccination. Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but it is good at detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting that might indicate possible safety problems that need a closer look. JustMe: I also assume that the same thing was true with all the other vaccinations, that is they just report the negative interactions they don't investigate them. The reports are investigated. That's why they are made available. But the reports themselves do not imply causality. That is according to the very source you use to make your claim.
#4.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 10:57
(Reply)
So than, you agree with me that the tens of thousands of deaths from covid vaccine exceed all deaths from all other vaccines since vaccines were created? Even though the CDC doesn't bother to figure it all out.
#4.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1
JustMe
on
2021-11-21 15:10
(Reply)
JustMe: So than, you agree with me that the tens of thousands of deaths from covid vaccine exceed all deaths from all other vaccines since vaccines were created?
Some people will die over a period of time regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not. You have to adjust the reported numbers by age and period to determine whether the reported deaths are above what would be expected otherwise. You may have to account for other confounding factors, something you have not done or even considered. You are making a claim using data which the source YOU cited indicates can't be used as you are. Your position has no foundation.
#4.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 16:15
(Reply)
Mumbling, bumbling, stumbling, fumbling...
#4.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachinoff
on
2021-11-21 16:30
(Reply)
"Your position has no foundation."
It seems pretty obvious and relevant to me. Tens of thousands die from getting the vaccine and you can't see diddly squat with your eyes wide shut. I have a great idea! Why not require the Pharmaceutical companies to revel everything about the vaccine instead of allowing them to hide it for 55 years??
#4.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2
JustMe
on
2021-11-21 18:28
(Reply)
JustMe: Tens of thousands die from getting the vaccine
You keep saying that, but the evidence you provided doesn't support your claim.
#4.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-22 08:28
(Reply)
It is obvious at this point that Democrats are intent on dividing the country on race and starting a race war. The Rittenhouse case is a perfect example even though there isn't actually a race component. The left, the Biden supporters, are allowed to riot, burn cities, loot businesses and attack and kill people with no interference. But if you try to stand up against this outrage the left stands together to bring you down and uses the legal system to do it. Officer Chauvin didn't kill George Floyd, drugs killed George Floyd. Chauvin was simple sacrificed on the alter of black racism to the mob and our legal system participated in that. It was a political intimidation of the police intended to force all police departments to back off arresting the Democrat voters. Simple as that.
What I don't understand is how all the demonrats stick together and vote for / approve this nonsense. It's a CULT' maddog.
NY Times: Why are Democrats such incredible hypocrites? Ummmmm, because they read the NYT and the WaPoo??????
That article about Harvard is just stupid.
Assuming, as it states, that 43% of "Whites" with various attributes who are admitted to Harvard would not have been admitted on "merit" alone (whatever "merit" is), there is no consideration of what percentage of black applicants would have been admitted on "merit" alone (my presumption is, a much higher percentage, as many as 90%, would not have been admitted based on SAT scores, as one measurement of "merit"). Then there are "Asians," a category of very meritorious applicants that Harvard disadvantages greatly in every aspect of its admissions process. The truth is, Harvard admissions policies are a complete mess, skewed in every respect by irrational political considerations popular among academic elites. I say this as an advocate for color-blind, national-origin-blind admissions and as no defender of "legacy" and other historical admissions practices. "Whites" are just today's journalistic whipping boy, selectively screamed about to reach a "result," which is to dump on currently disfavored classes of people by race and to foster resentment. This is vile, vile, vile. Now hear this-- your new put down phrase of this year. The phrase that will be added to their repertoire of put downs that diminish your defense of the Constitution and this country. What is that new phrase you may ask? How about this one:
"self rights fanatic" or "self rights activist" Don't you just love what the communists can teach our youngsters about the English language? What do we call someone who's come to believe that he has an unalienable right to burn stuff down if he's upset, or to grab anything we wants off the shelves of a store without paying? Isn't that kind of a self-rights fanaticism, too? Maybe the good kind, though.
Texan99: What do we call someone who's come to believe that he has an unalienable right to burn stuff down if he's upset, or to grab anything we wants off the shelves of a store without paying?
A criminal. That's a good start. Lets try another test: What do we call a concerned parent who goes to a school board meeting to object tot their secretive propaganding?
Anon: What do we call a concerned parent who goes to a school board meeting to object tot their {alleged} secretive propaganding?
Someone exercising their right to free speech and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
#9.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 11:08
(Reply)
So explain this https://thenewamerican.com/fbi-raids-house-of-activist-mom-who-opposes-school-boards-policies-alleged-election-fraud/ It looks like KGB style intimidation
#9.1.1.1.1.1
Anon
on
2021-11-21 15:13
(Reply)
Anon: So explain this
There was an illegal data-breach of the election computers for the Mesa County Clerk's office. Someone turned off the security cameras, then copied internal data. A search warrant was issued through the courts. Anon: It looks like KGB style intimidation Unless you have evidence of malfeasance, it looks like the Fourth Amendment.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-21 16:24
(Reply)
Now the KiddieZ be tap dancing.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Zachinoff
on
2021-11-21 16:57
(Reply)
AHA!!! Got you to admit that there was election fraud. LOL!
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.2
Anon
on
2021-11-21 18:30
(Reply)
Anon: Got you to admit that there was election fraud.
The events in question occurred after the election. The hacked data did not show any election fraud.
#9.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1
Zachriel
on
2021-11-22 08:32
(Reply)
Joel Kotkin is one of only two individuals who has anything intelligent to say about the birth "dearth". The other is Jonathan Last, who wrote "What to Expect When No One is Expecting". Everyone else who has written about this issue, both from the left and the right, have said nothing but twaddle.
|
Tracked: Nov 21, 09:47