Azalin
-
Posts
7,848 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Azalin
-
-
3 hours ago, Foxx said:
That is so refreshing to see. So few people have the balls to say that on television nowadays. Anyone here surprised that it's an older guy that said it?
Cheers, Mr Morgan. Cheers.
-
4
-
1
-
-
The world is now a lot less silly for losing him. RIP Terry Jones.
-
1
-
-
It would really make things a lot more pleasant around here if people would stop feeding the trolls.
It would be even better if they stopped quoting them, too.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Consider: “The consent of the governed”This concept is what Lockeans and Jeffersonians would mandate In order that a government be considered legitimate.
However, in order for this to be true it would require 100% consent and non-compelled participation in the democratic process.
Here in America far less than 50% of the eligible population casts a ballot. The two major parties construct the law in such a manner to limit 3rd party participation in order to maintain a false choice paradigm.
Given this the ruling class takes it’s “mandate for action” on the day so of maybe 1/4 of the population.
It’s part of the matrix used to oppress.
You sure make it difficult to argue, my friend.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
I would argue that the franchise is nothing more than a legal fiction.A construct invented by the elite/ruling class in order to justify as legitimate the projection of force towards those they intend to rule.
The franchise cannot exist without the state, and the state is not of God. The franchise is part of the chains of servitude.
I don't know, man. We frequently agree, but I hope you're wrong.
-
3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
There’s a very reasonable argument to be made that violent uprisings against the ruling class are a valid check and balance on any government.I'm familiar with that argument, but seeing how we're talking about Puerto Rico, a US territory, I'm inclined to advocate for removal from office and criminal charges be levied.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, B-Man said:
This illustrates perfectly that the press at large isn't necessarily liberal. There's such a huge difference between the political philosophies espoused by people like JFK or LBJ when compared with democrats of today. This shows that it's purely partisan - political values and philosophy have absolutely nothing to do with it.
-
4
-
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Folks are getting wise to the tactics.
-
3
-
-
It would require a coup; a renegade takeover of the republic in order to take away rights that are guaranteed to us by our creator. That would be cause for an immediate call to arms.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CoudyBills said:
No, their citizens should kill them. Threats of prison sentences that will never happen don't provide a deterrent.
Nothing like a little mass-murder to get your democracy back on track, eh?
-
4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:
Why's that?
16 minutes ago, Azalin said:I just think that's a classless, ***** thing to do. I also happen to think that Schiff is a classless, ***** person, and I would expect something like that from him. It's not something that I "support" one way or another as a political tactic. If someone has odd taste in their sexual indulgences, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, then I don't think it's anybody else's business.
You may feel differently. If so, fair enough.
5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:While I tend to agree with you in general, a picture reportedly found in Buck's home depicted Schiff along with a partially clad black guy and what looked like drugs on the table. Buck has been indicted on picking up black guys, having sex with them and helping them to overdose.
If there is anything that implicated Schiff in doing illegal drugs or poisoning African Americans, then absolutely nail his as to the wall.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:
Those responsible for withholding all that aid need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Would you support the release of embarrassing, though not illegal, information if it made a difference in the 2020 election cycle? Is it all fair in politics if the desired outcome is achieved? Just wondering how you see that.
I just think that's a classless, ***** thing to do. I also happen to think that Schiff is a classless, ***** person, and I would expect something like that from him. It's not something that I "support" one way or another as a political tactic. If someone has odd taste in their sexual indulgences, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, then I don't think it's anybody else's business.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, /dev/null said:
Don't care
If the images implicate him some illegal activity (drug use, involvement in the deaths of any of Buck's multiple victims), the authorities should use the images to prosecute
But I have no interest in seeing Adam Schiff engaged in "salacious" activites
Same here. Proof of illegal activity is one thing, but if this is just Schiff getting caught doing something embarrassing, then I think it's a bad look for Republicans if they release whatever it is that they have.
-
9 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:
Understood, but that sounds like you are independent because the Republican party is not conservative. My point was that most of the closet crazies I know swear they are not.
I'm independent because of what I said above: there's little difference between the parties in reality and they both lie to us constantly. I only commented on your post because you seemed to be painting with a rather broad brush in describing your experiences with independents.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, CoudyBills said:
That's what they all say. Hell, the most liberal person I know swears he is an independent. Claims he voted Republican his whole life. All lies.
Seeing how the bulk of the national Republican party is as pro-deficit/big spending as the Democrats are, many of us are independent because we do not believe in supporting a party that lies to us.
-
4
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, B-Man said:
Thanks Democrats............
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON:
The New Post-Trump Constitution.
“The new normal:
Impeachment as a routine partisan tool, endless investigations, lying under oath with impunity, surveillance of political enemies, zero accountability …”
" This is the new political climate. It is obvious that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama could easily have been impeached under such protocols after they lost their party’s majority in the House of Representative. From now on, their successors will likely enjoy no such exemptions."
Because they didn't learn a ***** thing about precedent from Harry ***** Reid.
-
5
-
-
3 hours ago, GG said:
For starters, this is the link to the board's ToS (a few more carriage returns wouldn't hurt).
I also do not want to dictate policy on a forum that I do not control. At the end of the day, we are at Scott's mercy and discretion. For that, we should be grateful for opening up this sandbox and letting it be more open to exchanges, no matter how rancid they may turn.
Predictably, as some topics have gotten more heated, we need to address the elephant in the room of what should be done when posters are discovered to have a criminal past. As is the case with any community, this site is populated by many folks who have been convicted of something - all the way from speeding tickets to the ultimate sin (and many things in between).
The question we face is how to handle this properly, just like any functioning community would.
I am against openly doxing individuals on a forum that allows anonymity, especially when the offense is not public. I would also engage the poster privately first, if someone made me aware of allegations (such as a certain FB incident a few years back)
But if the crime had been committed and is in the public records, then people are free to apply their standards of airing the news. I think if the crime is serious and would affect the discourse, then I believe it should be disclosed to the community.
Appreciate all opinions.
Well said. I agree completely.
That said, I apparently miss a lot of crap that happens here. I saw Tom's "goodbye" post, but have no idea what inspired him to leave. I hope he comes back - despite his cantankerous, know-it-all nature, he adds a lot to the board. I'm completely in the dark with regard to anyone being doxxed, but that crap absolutely should not be allowed under any circumstances. It's probably also a good idea for folks to bear in mind that maintaining anonymity also means that you may not know anything about who is reading your posts, so a little thoughtful discretion could go a long way.
If someone among us, present or future, has indeed committed a serious crime that could affect the discourse here, then yes - let's share it with the folks.
2 hours ago, Nanker said:Maybe. It’s uncertain at this point. I hope not. Maybe it’s a sabbatical.
It happens. I was around here for the first year or so, then bailed. It took around twelve years for me to even start lurking again.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Koko78 said:
Pfft. What do those ***** know? They're neither woke, nor environmentally friendly. Think of the poor creature who might need to use that dry plant for shade (you know, to escape the effects of catastrophic global warming) someday! Well, if they burn the dry brush to prevent massive wildfires, that poor creature isn't going to have shade, now is it?!?
What the Australian Aboriginals need is a woke white person of privilege to swoop in and rescue them from their own ignorance.
Impossible. The science is already settled, and they never said anything about this while they were settling it.
In fact, what do we even need climate scientists for any more?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, B-Man said:
.
That's an excellent point. If the science is settled, then not another dime of anyone's tax dollars needs to be spent on climate research.
That needs to become the new mantra: "The science is settled, no taxes for research!"
If that actually became a thing, watch how quickly the "settled science" BS is dropped and the science becomes "ongoing" again.
-
4
-
-
8 hours ago, billsfan89 said:
The science is very much settled (as settled as science can be) that human cabon emissions are very much altering the climate. To what degree and what timetable these changes will occur is up for debate.
No, your second sentence contradicts your first. More study, possibly a lot more, is needed before we know definitively what kind of effect humanity is having on the climate. Consequently, one shouldn't assume that we're not having some kind of effect, and that it wouldn't do us good to pursue newer and better means of generating energy.
Also you used the example of cleaning up waters, etc again to make your point. Again, I remind you that all we had to do was use our own eyes to see the very obvious results of chemical pollution in our lakes and rivers. Yes, the science was new back then, but it hadn't become politicized as an issue yet and it didn't rely largely on doomsday predictions or computer models to sell it to the public.
-
24 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:
If anything the fact that oil and natural gas are limited resources should provide enough urgency to kick the dependence on them.
I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with this. We're nearly 250 pages into this thread, and just about every imaginable argument on the subject has been offered and dissected. All I can add for the moment is that with something as large as Earth's atmosphere and the relatively new science of climatology, the most unscientific approach to take is one that claims that "the science is settled". That couldn't be further from the truth, and anyone who makes that claim, whether denier or alarmist, is wrong. I have no problem with supporting the development of new or alternative energy sources, but I am against any energy policies or taxes that have a negative impact on the economy, especially ones based on knee-jerk reactionary environmental claims.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, TH3 said:
Well Bob....the point is this: The article linked is a list of cherry picked examples of people crying wolf over some environmental issues that did not come to fruition. I think you and the poster of that article can thank all the environmental “alarmists” alarming over lead paint, lead gas, DDT, sulfates and lead in coal exhaust, all the crap that was poured into the Great Lakes that is now a memory, the health hazards of smoking, seatbelts and airbags, fluoride, asbestos, ozone depletion, catalytic converters, coal ash, black lung disease, acid rain, the EPA, clean water standards, clean air standards...and thousands of other environmental rules and laws....all amazing taken care of while the economy flourishes. So go boating out on Lake Ontario....and thank an alarmist....they have a good batting average of being on to something.......
Everything in your list of examples is an issue that was changed due to empirical evidence of its harm to both people and nature . Humanity's effect on global climate change is based on computer models and incomplete/inaccurate data, not to mention that the issue has become politicized to the point where nobody believes anything that "the other side" does.
-
2
-
-
15 minutes ago, DC Tom said:
Several people blocked me on Twitter for suggesting that maybe they should stop making that argument because it wasn't helping them.
It's easier to do that than it is to cover your ears and say "lalalalalala I can't hear you" all the time.
-
1
-
The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
You mean like Obama supporters and their "cultish" support? Or the "cultish" support that Bush supporters had for GW? Or like the "cultish" support that Clinton supporters had for Bill? Or for Reagan? What about the Bernie, Warren, Hillary, etc "cultists"?
Why do you find it necessary to describe peoples' support for Trump as "cultish in their devotion"?
Does that make it easier for you to wave off their support for Trump as being something irrational?