Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, April 5. 2024

Why Your Brain is Wired for Pessimism—and What You Can Do to Fix It

Why Are Young People Troubled?

Parents Under Investigation for Raising an Independent Seven-Year-Old

From The Recycling Bin To The Landfill: The Major Flaw In Plastic Recycling

"Backlash Is Real": DEI Exodus Gains Steam Across Corporate America

Believe data, not activists: Transgenderism among kids is mostly a fad

Scots Flood First Minister Humza Yousaf’s ‘Hate Crime’ Tip Line With Reports of His Anti-White Speech

TGIF: Happy Cesar Chavez Trans Visibility Easter Day. Hipsters for nuclear war. DJT International. Fight Club on BART. Stoning makes a comeback. Plus: Seattle schools drop algebra and Amazon’s magic tech is just 1,000 people in India.

Poland Prepares New Hate-Speech Law: 3 Years In Prison For Insulting LGBT People

IS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNLAWFUL?

European Conservatives: How Has Fossil Fuel Suppression Worked Out For You?

The Data Show Israel Is Not Causing a Gazan Famine

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:00 | Comments (54) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Blinken Bombshell: "Ukraine Will Become A Member Of NATO"

WTH is the Biden Administration thinking?

Are they trying to back Putin into a corner?

I would think this might prod Putin into using any means at his disposal to defeat and annex Ukraine so that NATO membership could never happen.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hungary-vows-thwart-natos-newly-proposed-100bn-5-year-fund-ukraine

#1 feeblemind on 2024-04-05 09:13 (Reply)

The Ukrainian army is crumbing - this is the end-game for this stupid war. The best Blinken can hope for is that the final collapse is not until after the election.

#1.1 NJSoldier on 2024-04-05 09:56 (Reply)

Of course the Ukrainian army is losing. It was always going to lose. Do you think they should have just given up when Russia invaded? Should Poland and Germany give up if Russia invades? How about the U.S. should we just give up? Maybe you're right, what the hell is worth fighting for. Just let them kill all your sons and make sex slave of your daughters because you are too weak to be in our gene pool.

#1.1.1 SillyMe on 2024-04-05 10:38 (Reply)

Ukraine leadership should have ignored the west call for Nato membership, and they should have treated Russian speaking Ukrainians the same as everyone else in Ukraine. But NO, they had to go all Nazi.
Now we have Ukraine Nazis treated the same as the old German Nazis. All was preventable with electing sane leadership and avoiding the CIA and Nuland NWO, BBB, WEF insanity.

#1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-05 14:02 (Reply)

"had to go al Nazi"

Really. Where have you been? This has been going on for a few decades and the "Russian speaking" Ukrainians have gone all Nazi. In those areas of Ukraine where the Russians or Ukrainians who came from Russia, or Ukrainians who spoke Russian, or Ukrainians who wanted to be Russian killed Ukrainians by the hundreds and thousands. Both sides have bloody hands BUT only one country INVADED!!!

"Ukraine leadership should have ignored the west call for Nato membership"

Absolutely! How does that justify Russia's invasion???

"All was preventable with electing sane leadership and avoiding the CIA and Nuland NWO, BBB, WEF insanity."

And again, how does that justify Russia invading? I don't favor any of those groups/people BUT why do you think that they cannot have an opinion and influence BUT Russia can invade and that's just fine.

Ukraine is NOT Russia. Russia invaded. Russia is wrong regardless of whatever Putin-splaining you try to use to justify it. Ukraine is 100% right to defend itself. Not 90% right, not 50% right but 100% right.

Yes, we should, mostly, stay out of it. No NATO, no boots on the ground, no tanks and planes and no money. But we should morally support them in the UN and on the world stage. Russia is wrong, not Ukraine. Ukraine did NOT invade Russia.

#1.1.1.1.1 SillyMe on 2024-04-05 14:46 (Reply)

Silly me asks .."how does that justify Russia's invasion" of the Ukraine? For the same reason that JFK took the world to the brink of nuclear war over missiles in Cuba. I assume your query is predicated on the assumption that only the US empire, amongst the players of the world, has legitimate national security interests.

#1.1.1.1.1.1 Ulithi on 2024-04-05 18:03 (Reply)

Ukraine has no nuclear weapons. because they gave them up for Russian recognition of their borders and sovereignty. The Cuba example does not justify Russia invasion. Additionally, the US didn't invade Cuba in the 1960s. Had Ukraine not been lied to by Russia and taken western security promises at face value, they would likely be secure in their 2014 borders now.

If you're not from a Russian troll farm, then you're an idiot. And you're a liar in either case.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1 James on 2024-04-05 19:07 (Reply)

We didn't invade Cuba but we blockaded Cuba controlling access in and out of Cuba.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-06 11:32 (Reply)

James: 1) your ad hominem attacks add nothing to our "discussion". 2) playing the Russian troll farm card- or the similar reductio ad Hitlerum ploy- is simply a graceless and desperate way to acknowledge the end of debate. 3) Citing the Cuban example was not meant to justify and invasion, only to serve as an example that a country will go to the brink of, and if necessary actually engage in war, to protect what it considers threats to its vital/existential national security interest. Simply put, the US was ready to go to war over Russian nuclear missiles stationed 90 miles from our border, Russia went to war over NATO's plan to station similar weapons 150 miles from Moscow. NATO is simply an appendage of the Pentagon and one can be sure that Russia is aware that only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in armed conflict, hence it views NATO in Ukraine as an existential threat .

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Ulithi on 2024-04-06 13:01 (Reply)

Ulithi: Simply put, the US was ready to go to war over Russian nuclear missiles stationed 90 miles from our border, Russia went to war over NATO's plan to station similar weapons 150 miles from Moscow.

Notably, Kennedy negotiated a way out of the crisis, and got important concessions from Russia. The reason it was considered a problem for the Americans is because they thought it eroded their response time against a Russian first strike. Not long after, Russia placed nuclear-armed submarines off America's coast in international waters, making the entire question moot.

Ulithi: hence {Russia} views NATO in Ukraine as an existential threat .

There is certainly that strain of thought on the political right in Russia. However, strategic thinkers know this is very unlikely. Rather, Russia is a kleptocracy. Putin and his cronies wield nationalist impulses to expand their kleptocracy and to recapture Ukraine into that kleptocracy.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2024-04-06 14:10 (Reply)

The Biden family and Zelensky operate as kleptocracies. Take note of the congresscritters who become millionaires in a few short years in the US.
And nationalists are more likely to stay within their own borders than internationalists. It is the national socialists one needs to worry about. As a reminder, Nazis are national socialists.
Zelensky was elected as he promised to negotiate with Putin. But the Brits, likely with US encouragement, told Zelensky to not negotiate and he didn't negotiate. It takes two sides to negotiate. Evidently the US and Brits prefer war over negotiation.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-06 17:12 (Reply)

Zachriel claims that strategic thinkers know that NATO is not an existential threat. Who are these strategic thinkers pray tell ? Are they related to the "thinkers" who encouraged Napoleon to attack Russia, the same thinkers who planned Barbarosa, or the same experts who predicted Russia would defeat the backward Japanese even after the surprise attack on Port Arthur. If history is any yardstick by which to measure the likelihood of an attack on Russia, the Ruskies are simply paranoid to consider that alliance of dimwits to be an existential threat- so say the real strategic thinkers, Zach and company. LOL

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 Ulithi on 2024-04-08 15:06 (Reply)

Ulithi: strategic thinkers know that NATO is not an existential threat.

Which is why France still maintains the Maginot Line. You never know.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.3 Zachriel on 2024-04-08 15:10 (Reply)

James: The Cuba example does not justify Russia invasion.

Quite so.

James: Had Ukraine not been lied to by Russia and taken western security promises at face value, they would likely be secure in their 2014 borders now.

Just to be clear, the United States and the United Kingdom kept their security assurances, and then some. The signatories of the Budapest Memorandum, including Russia, promised to "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." There was no guarantee of direct military support, only that the signatories would go to the United Nations Security Council if Ukraine were the victim of aggression.

#1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2024-04-06 09:48 (Reply)

The Ukraines would not stop killing Russian speaking civilians in the Ukraine and the CIA, Nuland, and the Azov nazis were determined to keep killing Russian speaking Ukraines and even illegally removed the Russian speaking president. After the Russians allowed the reunification of east and west Germany, they were promised by American politicians that Nato would not encroach on Russia's borders. Does anyone think Russia would not react to any of this?
I'm sure the JoeBama, I will stand with Islam, administration will manage to screw up MENA and Israel relations to an equal degree. We simply can't quit meddling in other countries elections or affairs.

#1.1.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-06 11:49 (Reply)

How anyone can look at the maps of the frontlines after the first two months of the war and declare the "Ukraine is crumbling" or even losing the war is very mysterious.
In fact, Russia had lost the war strategically two months in, and there is nothing they have done since or can do in the future to recover from that defeat.

Russia has revealed their military incompetence, and the inferiority of their weapons to western weapons. They have also exhausted themselves economically, in terms of manpower, and materially. While simultaneously giving Ukraine the diagram for defending against Russian attacks even the face of Russian numerical superiority.

There are far too many RW Russian bootlickers on the internet for my taste. Maybe keep in mind that Russia is unambiguously the bad guy here.

#1.1.2 James on 2024-04-05 17:53 (Reply)

When something leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, a prudent person usually ceases from ingesting the bitter vetch.

#1.1.2.1 Ulithi on 2024-04-05 18:11 (Reply)

Or, when the activity is communicating rather than eating, refuting and mocking the idiot is an option.

#1.1.2.1.1 James on 2024-04-05 19:00 (Reply)

re IS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNLAWFUL?

Of course it is, but it is here to stay. There is nothing the little people can do about it.

#2 feeblemind on 2024-04-05 09:20 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Community Safety Minister Siobhian Brown said people were making “fake and vexatious complaints”. . . King James I demanded that the judges defer to the acts of his prerogative courts, including their interpretations of statutes, on the theory that the king’s absolute prerogative was above the law.

The deep roots of administrative law provides evidence of the intrinsic nature of administrative law to government, even if abused by monarchs in the past. Indeed, the rule of law itself is a delegation of authority, whereby an English king wouldn't have to adjudicate every case but delegated the authority to magistrates based on laws. Then the magistrates would develop more rules on how to apply the king's laws, establishing precedents called common law, a process also part of the American legal system.

Regarding agency regulation, does the legislature have to pass a law for every stop sign, traffic light, and passing lane? And if the traffic pattern changes, does the legislature have to pass a new law? Obviously, delegating these decisions to an administrative agency while requiring an objective basis for decisions makes more sense than having the legislature make every decision on the fly—even if you might disagree about that one stop sign.

QUOTE:

Similarly, nowadays, the judges defer to administrative power, including administrative interpretations of statutes, and although they no longer say that they thereby are treating administrative power as above the law, this is, in effect, what they again are doing.

Well, Hamburger is apparently referring to Chevron deference, whereby the court should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute, not administrative law itself. People always have a right to judicial review of regulatory actions, but Chevron deference can arguably tilt that review too far towards government. That doesn't make administrative law itself constitutionally untenable.

The Supreme Court will probably scale back or eliminate Chevron deference, but that doesn't mean there would be no administrative law. It would mean courts would have to make more decisions regarding how laws apply to methyl tertiary butyl ether and how many micrograms per liter should be allowed in drinking water; and for every new pollution threat in a world where new chemicals are invented every day.

#2.1 Zachriel on 2024-04-05 11:43 (Reply)

STFU and go away.
And take your bullshit ChatGPT with you.

#2.1.1 Zachinoff on 2024-04-05 14:48 (Reply)

Especially the fines. The government should not be able to fine you until and after a successful court trial. They should be required to charge you with a crime, not failing to follow one of the 99,000,000 administrative rules, take it to trial in front of 12 of your peers and prove their case... period! Administrative "laws" are tyranny.

#2.2 OneGuy on 2024-04-05 11:45 (Reply)

Don't bet it is here to stay. The admin state was created in 1946 by a dem senate, house, presidency and a stacked SCOTUS. It can go the same route as Roe v Wade.
The EPA is one of the worst violators of admin state legislating out of public view and with zero authority.

#2.3 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-05 14:09 (Reply)

Feds refuse to drop $37M fine, lawsuit against GCU despite audit finding no fault with Christian school

I see little difference in this case from the case against Trump in which they are trying to confiscate his property.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/feds-refuse-to-drop-37m-fine-lawsuit-against-gcu-despite-audit-finding-no-fault-with-christian-school/

#3 feeblemind on 2024-04-05 09:25 (Reply)

'Why Are Young People Troubled?'

The bullshit supernova that is climate change hasn't helped.

#4 Maniac on 2024-04-05 09:41 (Reply)

Scotland!! Wake the F**k up!! Here's your problem; your First Minister is Humza Yousaf!!! It SHOULD BE Liam McDonald or something more Scottish. You are being taken over by people who hate you!!

#5 OneGuy on 2024-04-05 10:33 (Reply)

OneGuy: You are being taken over by people who hate you!!

You do realize that Scotland is a democratic parliamentary system. The SNP/Greens won a majority of seats, and Humza Yousaf won election as leader of the SNP.

OneGuy: It SHOULD BE Liam McDonald or something more Scottish.

Once upon a time, names like Martinez, Callahan, and Obama were considered foreign sounding to many Americans. Scotland appears to have moved on from such racist notions.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2024-04-05 10:50 (Reply)

"Scotland appears to have moved on from such racist notions."

Like all neo-marxists, you're an intolerant, racist puritan. But who cares about that when you say something this dumb. It really is the stupidest thing I've ever read from you.

#5.1.1 jack walter on 2024-04-05 13:34 (Reply)

Not even close, jack.

#5.1.1.1 Zachinoff on 2024-04-05 14:52 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Scots Flood First Minister Humza Yousaf’s ‘Hate Crime’ Tip Line With Reports of His Anti-White Speech . . . Community Safety Minister Siobhian Brown said people were making “fake and vexatious complaints”.

Change is hard.

#5.2 Zachriel on 2024-04-05 11:04 (Reply)

Not all change is good.

#5.2.1 Don on 2024-04-05 12:14 (Reply)

Don: Not all change is good.

True enough. Some people are a racists or misanthropes, so they might advocate for murdering political leaders or even masses of their political opponents. On the other hand, we are rather fond of the humans. Call it a peccadillo, if you like.

#5.2.2 Zachriel on 2024-04-05 12:19 (Reply)

Indeed, not all change is good.
Sometimes it's just stupid.
And expensive.

Aye, laddie!

#5.2.2.1 Zachinoff on 2024-04-05 15:16 (Reply)

Watch this video https://rumble.com/v4m18l5-44-islam-in-italy-women-and-islam-murder-and-threats-of-murder.html and tell me again who the misanthropes are.

#5.2.2.2 OneGuy on 2024-04-05 15:48 (Reply)

"Yousaf won election as leader of the SNP."

Did the citizens get to vote for him???

"Change is hard"

Especially when it is tyranny. The communist are taking over the Western nations. They are using the classical communist methods of divide the people, cheat on the elections and punish those who speak up. IMO people in the Western nations have grown too complacent and weak. They are all being invaded and are afraid to speak up. Action is what is needed. Bring back the guillotine. The best thing that could happen to Humza Yousaf is to be found dead in bed with a pillow over his head (just like they killed Scalia. Ditto for ever SNP/Greens that voted for this traitor.

#6 OneGuy on 2024-04-05 11:53 (Reply)

OneGuy: Did the citizens get to vote for him???

In a parliamentary system, the voters choose their district MSP. The MSPs then vote for the leader of their parties. The SNP/Greens won a majority of seats, and Humza Yousaf won election as leader of the SNP. That can change with a new vote of the party or by a general election.

OneGuy: Bring back the guillotine. The best thing that could happen to Humza Yousaf is to be found dead in bed with a pillow over his head (just like they killed Scalia.

Nothing like a little extra-judicial murder to enhance the democratic process.

OneGuy: Ditto for ever SNP/Greens that voted for this traitor.

Nothing like a little mass murder to enhance the democratic process. (That would be a bit more than half the population of Scotland.)

#6.1 Zachriel on 2024-04-05 12:15 (Reply)

Y'all really like annoying the adults with your twaddle.

#6.1.1 Zachinoff on 2024-04-05 14:54 (Reply)

That's a lot of words to say no! The citizens didn't vote him into office.

"Nothing like a little extra-judicial murder to enhance the democratic process."

THAT is the point. IT IS NOT DEMOCRACY, IT IS WAR. They know it, the Scottish people haven't realized it yet. In war you have to break some eggs. Start with Yousaf and anyone who voted him in. IF THEY DON'T, within 10 years or so their women will be wearing hijab's and their men will be killed or enslaved. This warning goes for all of Europe. It may be too late. either grow some balls or lay down and surrender.

"Nothing like a little mass murder to enhance the democratic process. "

It's not Democracy it is war. War is hell. Make it hell for the invaders. BUT, offer them a free ride home to show how fair and Democratic you are.

#6.1.2 OneGuy on 2024-04-05 14:55 (Reply)

OneGuy: The citizens didn't vote him into office.

The United States has never had a direct election of the president either. Still, the United States is a representative democracy, just as parliamentary systems that have direct elections of MPs are representative democracies. That's how they work.

#6.1.3 Zachriel on 2024-04-05 15:05 (Reply)

The parliamentary system is deeply flawed and this selection by parliament of the nation's leader is the worst flaw. Most people/countries who live under a parliamentary system like it because of history or tradition or ignorance or whatever. Ask a Canadian, I have, and they will jump to defend their system. Fine, it's their system and they can think and do whatever Parliament still allows them to do (as long as they don't declare it to be hate speech or they run you over and kill you with their horses). But right now Canada is suffering under their Parliament's choice of their supreme leader/dictator. And there is NOTHING they can do about it because they have a parliamentary system. Their government becomes more left/communist leaning everyday and they cannot fix it (ours too but greatly delayed and interrupted by our underlying constitution until the Dems/communists stack the Supreme Court).

The basic problem is this: You, the citizen, vote for a representative from a very short list of choices where the ruling party creates the list. Once either of the ruling parties choices that they gave you is elected they then all work together to take away your rights and freedoms and all of your money. To keep this scam going they spend all their time and effort dividing you so that one half of the voters vote for the worst pro-communist politicians and the other half votes for the least worst pro-communist politicians. And if it ever looks like the people, the citizens are waking up to the scam they double down of the division and hate ("A basket of deplorables" or free stuff to certain races and weirdos if you vote for us). Maximize the chaos and the division and keep stealing the money and the power. This is their game, their club and YOU aren't in it. In the end they will destroy democracy the Republic, the parliamentary system and it will be replaced by a dictatorship or worse. That is historically predictable. And the root problem is complacency and the willingness to let them divide you into opposing groups so that they can dilute your power over them.

There are only two viable ways to stop this "Slouching towards Gomorra. 1. The politicians police themselves and expel the pro-communists and embrace Democracy and freedom. 2. The citizens expel the politicians and replace them with honest pro-democratic leaders.
The first is likely when pigs fly. The second will require a civil war. So... slouching towards certain destruction it is...

#6.1.3.1 OneGuy on 2024-04-05 16:28 (Reply)

OneGuy: The parliamentary system is deeply flawed and . . .

Mathematical analysis shows that no election system is without flaws. Regardless of the system, as long as there are more than two political poles, sometimes leaders without majority support will be elected. Consider a three party race, plurality wins: 35% support the Liberals, 20% the Greens, 45% support the Conservatives. Given that most of the Greens would support the Liberals over the Conservatives, nonetheless, the Conservatives win in a three-way plurality wins race. Similar conundrums exist for other electoral systems.

OneGuy: this selection by parliament of the nation's leader is the worst flaw.

The United States presidential system uses the antique electoral college, which weights the votes of small, rural states. That can result in a president who doesn't have majority support of the population.

OneGuy: But right now Canada is suffering under their Parliament's choice of their supreme leader/dictator. And there is NOTHING they can do about it because they have a parliamentary system.

That is not correct. Canada has elections every four years, and the people can certainly vote the ruling party out of office, or the party can change their leader. An early election can also be called by the governor general or by a vote of no confidence by the House of Commons. Generally, if the Prime Minister loses too much support, they will resign because they won't be able to govern.

As for Scotland, which was your original example, there is an election every four years. The Prime Minister can be booted early by the passage of a motion of no confidence by the parliament. Parliament can also be dissolved early by a two-thirds vote, leading to an early election.

OneGuy: The basic problem is this: You, the citizen, vote for a representative from a very short list of choices where the ruling party creates the list.

You have that backwards. In the United States, first-past-the-post elections and numerous structural impediments make third parties largely non-viable. In a parliamentary system, there are often multiple parties vying for votes. If there is no majority party, then the larger parties have to negotiate with smaller parties to form a working majority. That means a vote for the Greens or for the Party for Freedom may have an large impact. Voting for a third party in the United States usually just represents a non-vote for the two major parties, but otherwise having no electoral significance.

OneGuy: Action is what is needed. Bring back the guillotine. The best thing that could happen to Humza Yousaf is to be found dead in bed with a pillow over his head (just like they killed Scalia. Ditto for ever SNP/Greens that voted for this traitor.

You had argued for the murder of half of the people in Scotland. Do you stand by that? Do you intend to murder them yourself to "save Scotland"?

#6.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2024-04-06 10:17 (Reply)

"The United States presidential system uses the antique electoral college"

The electoral college puts equity into the election system. It may be antiquated but like many things that we could call "antiquated" it is the best choice. The constitution is brilliant, we should decide to live by it instead of trying to replace it with communism as Zach wants.

"Canada has elections every four years, and the people can certainly vote the ruling party out of office"

Ironically IF they had a system like the electoral college they could vote out their "ruler". But a powerful minority of immigrants in the large population centers through division of voters and total control of their population prevent Canadians from controlling their own government and the parliamentary system makes that even more possible than a straight majority vote system would. Provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan literally have no voice in the running of their government. Even if all voters in both of those provinces voted as a block to oust the pro-communist leaders they would fail. Because Canada is ruled by Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. And guess where all those recent immigrants live???

"You had argued for the murder of half of the people in Scotland."

Well first of all it is no where near half and I'm not talking about the Scottish people but rather the invaders. And "murder", no! Death in the war, yes. But as I said the Scottish people should offer all the recent immigrants a free ride back to their home. They are squatters and should be ejected or killed in the war to get them out of Scotland. Could I possibly be any clearer? Ditto for Canadians, wake up you have been invaded and your government assisted the invaders. Eject the invaders by force and jail everyone in the government who assisted it. Or, conversely, give up, put the keys to your car on your porch and give the government you money and property and given into to your socialized health care euthanasia. Your choice! Die fighting for your land and heritage or let them kill you on your knees.

#6.1.3.2.1 OneGuy on 2024-04-06 11:23 (Reply)

OneGuy: The electoral college puts equity into the election system.

equity, the quality of being fair and impartial.

Giving voters in Wyoming three times the say as voters in California is not particularly fair. Regardless, the winner of the electoral college may not have the support of a majority of Americans.

OneGuy: The constitution is brilliant

The U.S. Constitution is a kludge, as was known when it was adopted. It failed completely in less than a century.

OneGuy: we should decide to live by it instead of trying to replace it with communism as Zach wants.

We don't support communism in any of its forms. We do support constitutional government as the best guarantor against anarchy and tyranny.

OneGuy: But a powerful minority of immigrants in the large population centers through division of voters and total control of their population prevent Canadians from controlling their own government and the parliamentary system makes that even more possible than a straight majority vote system would.

So, you define Canadians by race. Nice to know.

OneGuy: Well first of all it is no where near half and I'm not talking about the Scottish people but rather the invaders.

Um, you included the SNP/Greens in your murder plans. So, are you paring back your mass murder plans to just the 400,000 people in Scotland who are non-British nationals?

OneGuy: And "murder", no! Death in the war, yes.

Well, killing every one of them, mostly unarmed civilians, is called murder, even in war. You also directly advocated for the murder of Scotland's First Minister, undoing the result of the electoral process where the SNP/Greens won a majority of seats in parliament.

While you haven't actually retracted your previous position, we suppose ejection and jailing everyone who opposes you politically isn't quite as bad as mass murder. And this is where we remind you that constitutional government and the rule of law, not mass jailing of political opponents, is the best guarantor against anarchy and tyranny—including in Scotland.

#6.1.3.2.2 Zachriel on 2024-04-06 11:49 (Reply)

Read the Constitution... it is NOT the duty of the legislature to pass laws on stop signs, traffic lights and passing lanes.
They do have a duty to protect the border which requires NO admin state to interfere with that duty.

#7 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-05 14:15 (Reply)

If I fail to stop at the stop sign are you suggesting that I do not have a right to be heard in a court of law? Is that really what you meant to say? That idea, that concept has a name; Tyranny. Most people don't opt to go to traffic court usually because they accept that they broke the "law". BUT, they have that option. Simple as that. Make legitimate laws and enforce them NOT through a unelected, unaccountable, anonymous bureaucracy but rather through a legal system. IF it is just it will be accepted by the people and they will pay their fines or make their required changes. But if you just force it under the thumb of jail or bankruptcy without the option to be heard in a fair court then it is tyranny, pure and simple.

#7.1 OneGuy on 2024-04-05 15:01 (Reply)

OneGuy: If I fail to stop at the stop sign are you suggesting that I do not have a right to be heard in a court of law?

And you have a right to contest any administrative penalty in court. Judicial review is allowed under an agency's enabling statute or under §§ 701-706 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

#7.1.1 Zachriel on 2024-04-05 15:07 (Reply)

You lie!! And you know you lied. I can go to traffic court for a traffic infraction and argue my case and quite possibly win, especially if I have a dash cam and/or videoed the encounter with law enforcement. And I can do this at zero cost to me but my time.

However, if the EPA or any of the federal government's bureaucracy fines or penalizes you then you CANNOT. You must "hire" a lawyer at $500 an hour AND the bureaucracy will use this against you to bankrupt you by using the government purse to delay, obfuscate, challenge, your case endlessly, years and all the while they fine you every day and tack on interest everyday knowing that they can break you and it would be easier for you to just give them your land, all your money and file bankruptcy than it is to beat them in court. THAT is the problem. THAT is the tyranny. THAT (tyranny) is what you glorify and want. JUSTICE is what I hold in the highest esteem and want for all citizens of our country, not just the rich and connected.

You lied, we no you lied, you know we know you lied and you did it anyway because THAT is who you are.

#7.1.1.1 OneGuy on 2024-04-05 15:57 (Reply)

OneGuy: I can go to traffic court for a traffic infraction and argue my case and quite possibly win, especially if I have a dash cam and/or videoed the encounter with law enforcement. And I can do this at zero cost to me but my time.

Sure. Or you might hire a lawyer. That's up to you. It's a cost-benefit question.

OneGuy: However, if the EPA or any of the federal government's bureaucracy fines or penalizes you then you CANNOT.

You don't have to hire a lawyer, but you can. That's up to you. Most people hire a lawyer when the incurred expense involved is large enough to justify the expense of the lawyer.

Meanwhile, you had argued for the murder of half of the people in Scotland. Do you stand by that? Do you intend to murder them yourself to "save Scotland"? (If you retract, we will be happy to drop the subject as just an ill-considered comment.)

#7.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2024-04-06 10:21 (Reply)

There are actually attorneys who specialize in traffic courts. For instance, the Traffic Law Center has "30 years in business, over half a million traffic ticket cases resolved."

#7.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2024-04-06 11:08 (Reply)

Fiscal Collapse Accelerates from the Brownstone Institute
by Peter St Onge April 4, 2024

"The economy isn't real. It's propped up by debt. They will fake it till they break it."

At this point, federal debt is rising by $1 trillion every 90 days, and US government spending as a percent of GDP is at WWll levels.

The new Bidenomics... buying growth with debt.

#8 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-05 14:49 (Reply)

Fixing FDR’s Biggest Blunder: From Gold Standard to Fiat Folly and Back

QUOTE:

America did not always have unbacked paper money. In fact, America’s founders spilled a lot of ink warning against the risks and ravages of fiat currencies.

. . . To enshrine honest money, they considered gold and silver to be the foundation. Gold and silver are notably the only form of money mentioned in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 10): “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.”

The Coinage Act of 1792 established the US Mint and regulated the coinage of gold, silver, and copper coins. The dollar was defined in terms of a specific weight of silver or gold, providing a tangible link between the currency and precious metals.

. . . According to economist Michael Bordo, the gold standard provided long-term stability, evidenced by an average annual inflation rate of 0.1 percent between 1880 and 1914 as compared to the average inflation rate of 4.1 percent from 1946 to 2003.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/fixing-fdrs-biggest-blunder-gold-standard-fiat-folly-and-back

#8.1 feeblemind on 2024-04-06 14:36 (Reply)

Gold and Silver coins along with gold and silver backed dollars have a definition for which they can be valued. Federal Reserve Notes have no definition for valuation which means they can and will go to zero in time.
Measure the Dow, one of each stock in the Dow, in ounces of gold and then measure the same in dollars. You will find that the Dow, measured in gold topped out in 1999. The Dow, measured in dollars, topped out two years ago until recently when it made a new high. Just as gold was making new highs measured in dollars.

#8.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-06 17:26 (Reply)

QUOTE:

According to economist Michael Bordo, the gold standard provided long-term stability, evidenced by an average annual inflation rate of 0.1 percent between 1880 and 1914

The period before 1914 included periods of inflation punctuated by deep deflationary periods, the boom and bust cycle of early industrialization.

No modern economy relies on the gold standard. When an economy expands, the money supply must also expand or you end up with deflation. Deflation inhibits spending and investment because no one will spend today when it will be cheaper tomorrow. The modern global economy is vastly larger than the economy of previous centuries. The Dow/Gold ratio continues to grow. Gold cannot supply the monetary needs of a modern economy.

#8.1.2 Zachriel on 2024-04-07 07:53 (Reply)

Boom and bust cycles ALWAYS existed but you will note that using gold and silver backed money always resulted in money returning to its original value as it had backing.
FRN continue to deflate in value. That value deflation is always to the benefit of the government as it is at the head of the line in creating fake money. Those at the end of the line get eaten by inflation of the fake money. Fake money ALWAYS goes to its true value which is zero.
Boom and bust cycles do not indicate bad money. They indicate crappy investment and spending choices. You may wonder why 1999 was peak DOW measured in gold. Look at all the crappy home mortgage political decisions and banking decisions and bailout decisions destroyed the value of the dollar but increased the value of gold. Fake money has an extremely poor store of value... basically it is a confidence game. When prudence in government and private spending goes by the wayside, so does the value of fake money.

#8.1.2.1 indyjonesouthere on 2024-04-07 15:55 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, April 5. 2024

Friday morning links