Home

Details

Brad Smith <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
8:05 PM (42 minutes ago)
to me

The only racists are those in the GOP and Libertarian Party who fight to honor a regime whose goals were to uphold white supremacists and oppress blacks.
Fuck off.

Mike Williamson
8:47 PM (0 minutes ago)
to Brad

Um...what is this about, and whom was it intended for? Because I have no idea who you are.

You're also wrong, since no such set of parameters and people exists.  But obviously, deductive reasoning is not your strong suit.

If it was intended at me, I note that you're anti-immigrant, but that's a common issue I deal with from "liberals."

~~~

Let's deconstruct his utter ignorance here:

Republicans and Libertarians are not the same group.  They're vastly different groups. Anyone lumping them together has to be so far from the mainstream that their only discernment is "us" and "them."

The US has never had a "Regime."

No one is "fighting" to "Honor" said regime, even using the loosest definition of same.

I think he may vaguely be referencing the Confederacy (Not a "Regime"), which is long gone, and was run very much by elitist democrats, who can be typified by Mike Bloomberg (D--Wall Street), who believes poor people should have their lives controlled because they're too stupid to manage them themselves, and by Demorrhoids who insist that voter ID is racist because blacks are too stupid to get ID (which almost everyone of every demographic already has, and by omitting the poverty-stricken whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Native Americans make it clear they think ONLY blacks have this problem, thus demonstrating exactly the point that THEY are the racists).

If so, the LP would have nothing to do with the Confederacy due to slavery, et al.  And I've never once heard a Republican insist we need to bring back slavery. But damned if the Demorrhoids don't do everything they can to have an impoverished underclass they can order around, especially if they can keep them without immigration papers and working for a pittance (See: Much of the Hollywood elite and scads of politicians).

So all I'm getting is that this guy is ignorant and angry that his own side's racism and elitism are so blatant.  But rather than try to fix them, he wants to project them onto normal people.

 

 

Details

28 Feb: near Nashville, at Oleg Volk's.

29 Feb: through Chattanooga and Atlanta, stopping in Tifton, GA.

1 Mar:  Through Jacksonville to Canaveral.

2 Mar: Early morning SpaceX launch, proceeding to Miami area.

3 Mar: Touring some USCG facilities, proceeding through swamp.

4 Mar: Signing books at Books at Park Place in St Petersburg, stopping in the Tampa area.

5 Mar: Tyndall Air Force Base.

6 Mar: Pensacola and hypothetically Mobile, AL.

I can meet up with people at actual stopping points--restaurants near my lodging, private homes, etc.  I can't make a lot of stops en route except for close friends.

Drop me an email, and I'm also creating a thread under this post on my official FB author page.

Details

 

Bill's Politipalooza

Yesterday at 10:30 AM · 

There are very legitimate arguments against Medicare for All. I am against M4A and am very happy to explain why. However, new government expenses and taxes aren't really among the reasons. It's super hard to see a cancer patient holding a 6-figure bill and then complain about my taxes going up. It's super hard to see the $trillions spent on needless war and then complain about new government spending on its citizens. Lastly, when neither party gives a damn about debt and deficit, I simply cannot talk about the expense of M4A with a straight face. Fiscal sustainability is problematic with M4A, but it is a weak argument for most Americans given the current reality. I believe there are solutions far better than M4A, but let's debate them and stop thinking its a mic-drop moment when you ask to see the price tag. It's not!

~~~

Sure it is. I can hand you a million dollar bill for a dying kid every ten seconds. If you care about these people, you'll pay it, right?

Every person starts with a responsibility to themselves, their immediate family and friends, then their neighborhood, community, politic, and species in that order.

If you place the charity of random strangers above your own immediate circle, you are generous, but also a drain on on your own resources, and you will run out of them in short order.

Not every problem in the world is your problem or my problem. That is a harsh reality.

Is it reasonable to support your immediate circles? Yes, because you will gain similar benefit in response. Is it reasonable to offer some limited support further out, as available? Absolutely. Should you starve your own family to do so? Well, you can, but I won't.

Literally anyone can write a check to the Dept of Health and Human Services, or any other gov't agency, and it will be cashed. Demands for legislative force mean those people want SOMEONE ELSE to be made to donate, not themselves. You can find plenty of news stories about it, too. "I didn't think _my_ taxes would go up!" They voted for SOMEONE ELSE to get screwed out of resources.

If you go to the bank and say, "I need a loan for a new roof," you'll probably get it. The infrastructure helps your family and its economics. If you say, "I need to borrow $10,000 to give to some kid with cancer in Kansas," they're going to refuse, and they should. Taxes, especially deficits, should be going for critical societal needs such as infrastructure and defense. Charity is a luxury a wealthy nation can afford to a certain degree. The nation that mandates it as a non-discretionary entitlement, while considering infrastructure and defense to be discretionary, is on the slope to destruction.

Then there's the reality that the same government that spends $500 on hammers, denies painkillers to cancer patients, and negligently exposed at least 6000 veterans to HIV shouldn't be making ANY health care decisions.

Details

/></p><p> This isn't even offensive to or about anything.  It's a pun. Which, granted, should be punished, but not by banning.</p><p>The furthest back anyone got me was a for a three year old comment, but I've seen bans for 4 and 6 year old content.</p><p>Can everyone with a brain agree:<br /> <br />Past a month, the worst that should happen is the post is removed.</p><p>If it's not an actual threat, actual porn vs nudity, it should stand.</p><p>That while Nazis, Communists, Fascists and other left wingers are subhuman shit, they retain the same right to free speech as human beings.</p><p>That mocking them, or any other group, is not actually harmful in any way, and is the whole point of that concept of freedom of expression.</p><p>And that if some pathetic pussy little gamma bitch is offended and whines, they should simply be blocked from the account in question, so they won't be offended anymore. (This is what happens at <a href=www.MeWe.com if you report something.)

Does anyone think the above is not reasonable?

And yet, if someone were to explain that to the Cockzucker, using a ball bat until his cranial intestines leaked onto the sidewalk, rather than the public benefactor they actually would be, they'd be considered a criminal.

And thus, western civilization is doomed by "tolerant" "liberals" who can tolerate anything except dissent or humor.

  1. The Shitshow of Bigotry That Was ST:TNG and DS9
  2. A Critical Message To My Readers

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home