my point is that you want government to do everything you like and nothing that you don't. you classify things you don't like as "waste." that's how you work. you have no deeper system. you're all, "cut it all!" until i suggest one consequence that is from your perspective negative -- and then you're like, "not that!"
my point is that you want government to do everything you like and nothing that you don't. you classify things you don't like as "waste." that's how you work. you have no deeper system. you're all, "cut it all!" until i suggest one consequence that is from your perspective negative -- and then you're like, "not that!"
i do think a lot of the cuts being made are long overdue -- and i personally consider *actively spending money* to remove healthy working people from out country to be a colossal waste - so i'd throw most of ICE "into the woodchipper" as you types are fond of saying. but no, that bit of federal-state overreach - contrary as it may be to American traditions - is something you consider precious. do you need any more help before you get the point?
It is indisputable that govt. is now far too big, and its efforts are criminally misdirected.
The first issue is proper jobs. That means defend the border, keep civil peace, enforce contracts, preserve free markets. Then, as we prosper, perhaps humane welfare for the deserving needy, even though that is nowhere in the Constitution. You may prefer other jobs, but that’s your opinion.
The second issue is how much of GDP we let govt. have. Too much and it kills free markets. Even worse, it creates dependency in the people.
There are endless “nice to haves” most of which are counterproductive. Limits are required.
someone failed statistics. for a while, the richest man in the world was carlos slim helu, from mexico. did that mean mexicans were, on average, the richest people in the world? no it did not.
americans are the richest people in the world - the median american is richer than the median person from any other country. that's got nothing to do with outliers, on either end.
you engage here in a classic sleight of hand that equates "defend the border" with "internal & external permitting & tracking of would-be newcomers to this nation."
"defend the border" means "from hostile nations" - you lot applying it to migrant workers and people who've overstayed visas is just f*cking laughable.
stop pretending that you care more about the letter or spirit of the constitution than "leftists." you plainly don't. you brazenly twist it to whatever end you desire -- and worse than the "leftists," you deny that you're doing it.
next i'll ask you what "preserve free markets" specifically entails - i don't think that phrase is in the constitution, by the way, so from a constitutional perspective, you and elizabeth warren have equally valid opinions as to the government's proper role.
I stated the proper jobs of government and you may not pervert the clear language to suit your agenda.
State what you feel are the proper jobs of govt. You can't begin organize your thoughts.
Likewise, you have no idea how to even approach the total, baleful impact of govt. on the economy. You have no grasp that cash taxes are under half the total take. That must include unfunded mandates, borrowing, burden of laws, rules, regulations, the fraud of OASDHI, and worst of all, the hidden theft of deliberate inflation.
That last is the cruelest tax of all, hitting the poorest the hardest.
you are saying a bunch of unrelated crapola because you know very gosh darn well that "defend the border" does not mean what you are using it to mean.
you also know gosh darn well that "preserve free markets" is found nowhere in the constitution. you're sticking it in because you think it's a self-evidently good idea. i may agree, but that stands on no different ground from anyone else's assertions about what are self-evidently good ideas.
irritating as it is, we have to examine each "self-evidently good idea" by itself and on its own merits. if those ideas are found to be in fact bad, then they should be abandoned.
i accuse your beloved i.c.e. of having a massively damaging effect on the economy. i posit that were we to fling wide again the golden door, we would have a rapid increase in all those numbers you like so much, and further, that had we done so a hundred years ago, we would now have more people than china, and an economy of simply unimaginable size.
your closing of the door to newcomers is, furthermore, far more contrary to the spirit of america than a little grifting -- and while a parasite or a cancer may be purged from the body, there is no post-facto cure for congenital stunting. have you ever cut open a dog? LOTS of parasites in there. dog still works. a dog raised in a cage, meanwhile, will never run.
this is all rather beside the point, which is that either we are strict constitutionalists in terms of the permitted domains of federal government, or we are not - and you have already avowed that you are not. (don't feel bad. almost no one is.) what i believe is not particularly relevant.
Fascinating fantasies. You impute your own meanings to my word. You set up a “strawman,” and STILL you cannot win against your hapless opponent. Henceforth you will speak for yourself alone. Dispute if you are able, that which I state so clearly.
That noted, America is sovereign country. We admit only those who will, in our sole judgement, benefit America. You cannot object to that, nor to proper vetting of newcomers.
Sadly, the hate-America left has opened the borders to invasion by criminals and takers, freeloaders on the over-generous welfare.
Just one example. Minneapolis has been ravaged by criminal drug gangs. You cannot deny that.
You have not, because you cannot, articulate the proper jobs of govt. You are innumerate, and have not, because you cannot, discuss how much of the economy govt. may take for those limited jobs.
Think about that. Be ready to discuss, before you post again.
you lost every right to say anything about criminal thugs when you voted for the goon-in-chief, you f*cking moron. you have shit on america, and you rub lady liberty's nose in it every day he leaks in his diapers in the oval office.
wash yourself of that fetid stink before you say again the name of the united states of america.
it is the homeless, tempest-tossed, who have made this nation great, and they will again. i trust in that, for lack of much hope in this present low-down crew.
and i do mean both sides, before you twist your panties. a vote for trump was merely traitorous and rank: to vote for the child castrators would have been monstrous and inhuman.
as for where i shit, i shit on your dismal numbers. i speak of freedom: i speak of the principles of liberty. i would speak of them starving, lame, and chained. you, free, full, and fat, would bar your brother from your house so you can have a few more crumbs to yourself. you are no man.
"i sure am excited for trump's speech to congress tomorrow. i sure hope every measure is taken to ensure the safety of those present. who knows what that fucking madman musk might be planning. that guy is not right in the head."
Jiminy!
e: I GUESS i would extend my offer of representation to mr musk should he submit himself to the law. he'd better find somewhere to turn himself in fast, though. you know, before someone has to come and get him. and to be honest, i think he needs the salvation army's help more than mine. he's on so many kinds of sh*t i can't even count 'em. i could swear he's been awake since this interminable presidency started.
"good morning, sir. i would like to reiterate again the present state of our country.
THE PRESIDENT IS A HOSTAGE.
did you vote for donald trump, or elon musk? who would you rather direct the powers of our nation in extremis, should something unthinkable happen?
i would prefer donald trump.
as i have extended an offer to defend him against all crimes in all courts, should he submit himself to the law, i will say no more about such things.
it is urgently necessary that the person of donald trump be exfiltrated from the direct threat that elon musk and his private security force presently pose to him.
alternatively, elon musk and his private security detail must be removed from his immediate presence.
how can one of these two things be accomplished swiftly, and with a minimum of danger to the person of the president?
that, sir, is a question i am not equipped to answer -- but i am curious what ideas an experienced man such as yourself might have."
"any thoughts yet? i'm excited to share mine, because it's an interesting subject, but i'll wait for you, sir, since i wouldn't want to influence your independent conclusions.
as i traveled through the city, one person in brooklyn and one person in manhattan asked me where i was going, and i said to each, that i was looking for a wise man to ask him a few questions. each said, "i'm wise, ask me," and i put to them the violations of the laws of rome and of noah that i discussed, which, as i am increasingly taxed, i will not again reiterate, in the interest of my time and yours. both said that they could see no way in which these laws had not been plainly violated, and that they would not be willing to offer any arguments for the respective defendants.
i moreover asked each of them if it was okay for the president of the united states to be surrounded at all times by another man's presidential-security-detail-sized private security detail. both realized, immediately, that this made the president functionally a hostage to the person in charge of the private security detail, and that this situation was a plain and serious national security risk.
if a woman who passes out joints in front of the store she used to clean & a man with mostly gold teeth who shows young men how much cash he has both realize this, immediately, why don't you?
or do you? that would be worse, so i hope you just didn't think about it.
later i asked a policeman if i could ask him a question or two, since i didn't want to distract him while he was on duty if he needed all his attention, and he said that i could. so i asked him what he would do if the attorney general of the united states directed him to arrest the president. he said, "well, you've got to follow your orders." i said, "what if the president was going to order whoever he could, the secret service, the fbi, the cia, to fight back?" he said, "well, you've got to follow your orders."
then someone asked me to take a photo of their tour group, then a teen in the tour group offered me two hundred dollars for my beanie, and in the meantime, the policeman had walked to the other side of his perimeter, so i followed him, and i asked him if i could ask him another question. i asked him what he thought of the situation i described above, in which a man surrounded by a presidential-security-detail-sized private security force under his own command was standing body to body with the president at all times. his eyes detectably widened, and he said, "i can't talk politics while i'm in the uniform, but if i weren't in the uniform, i'd have something to say about that."
later, while i was waiting for my final subway connection of this trip, a man was pacing on the platform, listening to a video or a podcast or some such in which someone was cogently discussing statistical evidence of vote altering in a county in georgia. i don't remember all the details, but it was something about there seeming to have been an algorithm that seemed to activate once a few hundred votes had been recorded in a district, the exact activation threshold depending on the local expected vote total, and which once activated would change harris votes to trump votes such that a sixty percent trump vote ratio would be maintained, and which would also deactivate at some point, such as when the total number of trump votes had attained some ratio to trump votes in the previous election, so as to avoid a too-large local increase in trump votes that might attract unwanted attention.
now, i am not an expert on such things, but when the train came, and we both got on, i sat down next to the man, and i said, "if those goofballs messed with votes, that's one more reason they're about to go down." he said, "something absolutely has to be done. with nixon, with bush, there was abuse of power, and nothing was done, and look where we are now." i said, "look, nixon resigned, and bush, you know, whatever you think, it was a difficult time. and i bet this votes thing is like nixon - i bet they didn't even have to, but they just couldn't help themselves. but there's something right now that i think is more serious, and i wouldn't be surprised if something happens really soon." i was about to get off, as i had gone several stops past my destination during our conversation, but he said, "hey, wait one more stop -- you can't go back the other way at this one without going out and around." i thanked him very much for saving me $2.90, and i proceeded to explain the situation with the private security detail, i don't recall what exactly he said about it, as i was pretty tired by this time, but i doubt he approved.
so, as you might imagine, i'm also curious about what thoughts you might have on the private security detail situation. hope to hear from you soon."
"i'm back. they had excellent cookies. i met a wise young man and had an invigorating discussion. he said that, while he was far from an expert on the law of noah, and farther from an expert on the law of rome, a trial cannot be held without the accused being brought to court, and further, if i were seeking reason for mercy, that i should consider the case as if i were acting as the defense, and that i should consider how i would like to be treated were i the accused.
were i the accused, in a case of election interference, attempted or accomplished, i would submit myself to the court, and take the mercy cato offered caesar, which i have here offered to the man of whom we speak. likewise, were i the accused in a case of child castration, i would submit myself to the court, and ask forgiveness & mercy for any harm that i had done through error of judgment.
if i consider the case as if i were acting as the defense attorney, i would find it very difficult indeed to offer a defense in either of these cases: but then i would not be considered a qualified attorney to appear for the defense in any court. the best i can come up with is that i would advise the defendant that i could not find any argument against his guilt, and that i cannot offer any further advice than that he should submit to the mercy of the court.
yet, as i am not a qualified lawyer, while i could be appointed as an attorney general, or a district attorney, i could not represent any private defendant. so i will continue to seek out wise men, to see if they will offer a defense against these charges.
in the meantime, here is something for you to consider:
if the president, before the supreme court, argues that he is above the law, and the supreme court says that he is not, and orders his arrest, and the president resists, the united states of america would enter a state of crisis in which we would be vulnerable to enemies foreign and domestic.
this is often discussed: thus we may conclude that it is a possibility the founders envisioned, knowing as they did from history that one cannot rely on men to be good forever. in the eyes of the founders, i think, the tragedy of rome was not that of caesar, or of cato, but of the slow degradation of that great name -- "for this the sainted decii died?" -- in the hands of increasingly petty tyrants. that, i think, they would have thought to their utmost how to prevent.
so, considering that a president who argues he is above the law is necessarily unlikely to submit to the supreme court if his arrest is ordered, and that the founders were better-read men than you or i, don't you find it unlikely that they didn't prepare for this possibility?
i posit that they did. i posit that there is a secret instruction in the desk of the chief justice of the supreme court that states, in part, that if the president of the united states argues before the supreme court of the united states that he is above the law, that the supreme court should find, in public, that he is.
what further do you think the supreme court might be advised to do in order to prevent the bastardization of the grand name for which so many good men died? i have some thoughts, but i would like to hear yours, as i am tired, and would like a few hours' rest."
Hi -- the user to whom you respond has been banned by Mr Rufo, so I will have to post the response "in loco larvis" -- it is likely that I will be suspended for doing this, too, which is reasonable, but I don't really care. You will be able to find the following comment in your email, whether or not it is removed from public view here.
"beep boop.
what does it say about you and me, if i write so quickly, with cogency, that you think i'm not even human?
thank you for your service in vietnam -- if you haven't noticed, uncle sam is calling once again. these enemies are domestic: some castrate children, and some have trespassed on the sacred pomerium of our elections. whoever you think has done the greater crime, uncle sam says shoot them dead.
as for weighing one against the other, well, the castration of children earns the death penalty under the laws of rome (as long as they were the children of citizens, but in america, anyone born here is a citizen) as well as under the noahide law, whereas violation of the pomerium with arms in hand is only a roman capital crime. now, you know, it wasn't really a proper army, and he wasn't exactly at the head of it so much as merely egging from the back, so it's a bit closer to some low-down milo-and-clodius forum violence, for which one might get away with mere exile -- but if what he has said between then and now does not amount to an assertion of kingship, most certainly a roman capital crime, then i'm a monkey's uncle.
yet, for this my prosecution, there must also be a defense. it is only fair. cato, at least in addison's play, said that though he was unused to defending the guilty, he would advocate for caesar in all courts against all charges, if caesar would lay down the usurped roman state. let me be yet more merciful: you may here make your case for the life of the man of which we speak.
i doubt that you are interested in defending the child castrators: finding someone to speak competently on their behalf will be difficult. it is a violation of all law that was ever given, by king, priest, prophet, or philosopher. and yet, as i have read in my reading, though to exact death upon such people is within their remit, no talmudic court is known to have passed a death sentence upon a gentile for that or any other crime. (for a jew accused of such a thing, with witnesses, the sentence of a talmudic court would be, and has been, swift death.) so tomorrow i will go to seek a wise man of a merciful tradition, at the resting place of the late lubavitcher rebbe, for i know not where else to go. who i find there, i will ask to say, if he can, why the criminals to which i have referred should be permitted to live one day more. if you would prefer to shoot me instead, for that i say things you do not wish to hear, you are free to come and fucking try."
my point is that you want government to do everything you like and nothing that you don't. you classify things you don't like as "waste." that's how you work. you have no deeper system. you're all, "cut it all!" until i suggest one consequence that is from your perspective negative -- and then you're like, "not that!"
i do think a lot of the cuts being made are long overdue -- and i personally consider *actively spending money* to remove healthy working people from out country to be a colossal waste - so i'd throw most of ICE "into the woodchipper" as you types are fond of saying. but no, that bit of federal-state overreach - contrary as it may be to American traditions - is something you consider precious. do you need any more help before you get the point?
Incorrect, and badly so.
It is indisputable that govt. is now far too big, and its efforts are criminally misdirected.
The first issue is proper jobs. That means defend the border, keep civil peace, enforce contracts, preserve free markets. Then, as we prosper, perhaps humane welfare for the deserving needy, even though that is nowhere in the Constitution. You may prefer other jobs, but that’s your opinion.
The second issue is how much of GDP we let govt. have. Too much and it kills free markets. Even worse, it creates dependency in the people.
There are endless “nice to haves” most of which are counterproductive. Limits are required.
The bigger the government the smaller the citizen. And I might add, the poorer the citizen.
americans are presently the richest people in the world.
Some of the parasite class are among the richest -- The Obamas, the Clintons. et al.
And don't dare cite the productive rich. No comparison.
someone failed statistics. for a while, the richest man in the world was carlos slim helu, from mexico. did that mean mexicans were, on average, the richest people in the world? no it did not.
americans are the richest people in the world - the median american is richer than the median person from any other country. that's got nothing to do with outliers, on either end.
Grasp the modifiers, "some of the..."
Also, the Free Market made America rich, not socialist dogma.
That the parasite class grabbed disproportionate share is undeniable.
PS: Appreciate your engagement! I aim to be challenging, not dogmatic.
You don't win arguments with trolls--you only waste time
You're splitting hairs and making no sense.
So what?
you engage here in a classic sleight of hand that equates "defend the border" with "internal & external permitting & tracking of would-be newcomers to this nation."
"defend the border" means "from hostile nations" - you lot applying it to migrant workers and people who've overstayed visas is just f*cking laughable.
stop pretending that you care more about the letter or spirit of the constitution than "leftists." you plainly don't. you brazenly twist it to whatever end you desire -- and worse than the "leftists," you deny that you're doing it.
next i'll ask you what "preserve free markets" specifically entails - i don't think that phrase is in the constitution, by the way, so from a constitutional perspective, you and elizabeth warren have equally valid opinions as to the government's proper role.
Still wrong, now aggressive and highly defensive.
I stated the proper jobs of government and you may not pervert the clear language to suit your agenda.
State what you feel are the proper jobs of govt. You can't begin organize your thoughts.
Likewise, you have no idea how to even approach the total, baleful impact of govt. on the economy. You have no grasp that cash taxes are under half the total take. That must include unfunded mandates, borrowing, burden of laws, rules, regulations, the fraud of OASDHI, and worst of all, the hidden theft of deliberate inflation.
That last is the cruelest tax of all, hitting the poorest the hardest.
Prove you have a grasp of economics.
you are saying a bunch of unrelated crapola because you know very gosh darn well that "defend the border" does not mean what you are using it to mean.
you also know gosh darn well that "preserve free markets" is found nowhere in the constitution. you're sticking it in because you think it's a self-evidently good idea. i may agree, but that stands on no different ground from anyone else's assertions about what are self-evidently good ideas.
irritating as it is, we have to examine each "self-evidently good idea" by itself and on its own merits. if those ideas are found to be in fact bad, then they should be abandoned.
i accuse your beloved i.c.e. of having a massively damaging effect on the economy. i posit that were we to fling wide again the golden door, we would have a rapid increase in all those numbers you like so much, and further, that had we done so a hundred years ago, we would now have more people than china, and an economy of simply unimaginable size.
your closing of the door to newcomers is, furthermore, far more contrary to the spirit of america than a little grifting -- and while a parasite or a cancer may be purged from the body, there is no post-facto cure for congenital stunting. have you ever cut open a dog? LOTS of parasites in there. dog still works. a dog raised in a cage, meanwhile, will never run.
this is all rather beside the point, which is that either we are strict constitutionalists in terms of the permitted domains of federal government, or we are not - and you have already avowed that you are not. (don't feel bad. almost no one is.) what i believe is not particularly relevant.
Fascinating fantasies. You impute your own meanings to my word. You set up a “strawman,” and STILL you cannot win against your hapless opponent. Henceforth you will speak for yourself alone. Dispute if you are able, that which I state so clearly.
That noted, America is sovereign country. We admit only those who will, in our sole judgement, benefit America. You cannot object to that, nor to proper vetting of newcomers.
Sadly, the hate-America left has opened the borders to invasion by criminals and takers, freeloaders on the over-generous welfare.
Just one example. Minneapolis has been ravaged by criminal drug gangs. You cannot deny that.
You have not, because you cannot, articulate the proper jobs of govt. You are innumerate, and have not, because you cannot, discuss how much of the economy govt. may take for those limited jobs.
Think about that. Be ready to discuss, before you post again.
you lost every right to say anything about criminal thugs when you voted for the goon-in-chief, you f*cking moron. you have shit on america, and you rub lady liberty's nose in it every day he leaks in his diapers in the oval office.
wash yourself of that fetid stink before you say again the name of the united states of america.
it is the homeless, tempest-tossed, who have made this nation great, and they will again. i trust in that, for lack of much hope in this present low-down crew.
and i do mean both sides, before you twist your panties. a vote for trump was merely traitorous and rank: to vote for the child castrators would have been monstrous and inhuman.
as for where i shit, i shit on your dismal numbers. i speak of freedom: i speak of the principles of liberty. i would speak of them starving, lame, and chained. you, free, full, and fat, would bar your brother from your house so you can have a few more crumbs to yourself. you are no man.
I love it when you talk dirty to me.
Also, it's all here in red and green...
https://manhattan.institute/article/massive-reduction-in-global-poverty-might-be-the-most-important-development-in-the-world
Midnight bell.
You wanna fuck, you're fucking with me now.
You keep not your brother, and set up a golden cow?
I'll put a fucking bullet right between your eyebrows.
Some laws are older than the Constitution:
Justice is harsh, if it's the old law you're choosing.
Shit's gonna get real. I'm done fucking schmoozing.
If you’re an AI generated response you’re garbage in garbage out; get it?
A bit more:
"i sure am excited for trump's speech to congress tomorrow. i sure hope every measure is taken to ensure the safety of those present. who knows what that fucking madman musk might be planning. that guy is not right in the head."
Jiminy!
e: I GUESS i would extend my offer of representation to mr musk should he submit himself to the law. he'd better find somewhere to turn himself in fast, though. you know, before someone has to come and get him. and to be honest, i think he needs the salvation army's help more than mine. he's on so many kinds of sh*t i can't even count 'em. i could swear he's been awake since this interminable presidency started.
More:
"good morning, sir. i would like to reiterate again the present state of our country.
THE PRESIDENT IS A HOSTAGE.
did you vote for donald trump, or elon musk? who would you rather direct the powers of our nation in extremis, should something unthinkable happen?
i would prefer donald trump.
as i have extended an offer to defend him against all crimes in all courts, should he submit himself to the law, i will say no more about such things.
it is urgently necessary that the person of donald trump be exfiltrated from the direct threat that elon musk and his private security force presently pose to him.
alternatively, elon musk and his private security detail must be removed from his immediate presence.
how can one of these two things be accomplished swiftly, and with a minimum of danger to the person of the president?
that, sir, is a question i am not equipped to answer -- but i am curious what ideas an experienced man such as yourself might have."
Another:
"any thoughts yet? i'm excited to share mine, because it's an interesting subject, but i'll wait for you, sir, since i wouldn't want to influence your independent conclusions.
as i traveled through the city, one person in brooklyn and one person in manhattan asked me where i was going, and i said to each, that i was looking for a wise man to ask him a few questions. each said, "i'm wise, ask me," and i put to them the violations of the laws of rome and of noah that i discussed, which, as i am increasingly taxed, i will not again reiterate, in the interest of my time and yours. both said that they could see no way in which these laws had not been plainly violated, and that they would not be willing to offer any arguments for the respective defendants.
i moreover asked each of them if it was okay for the president of the united states to be surrounded at all times by another man's presidential-security-detail-sized private security detail. both realized, immediately, that this made the president functionally a hostage to the person in charge of the private security detail, and that this situation was a plain and serious national security risk.
if a woman who passes out joints in front of the store she used to clean & a man with mostly gold teeth who shows young men how much cash he has both realize this, immediately, why don't you?
or do you? that would be worse, so i hope you just didn't think about it.
later i asked a policeman if i could ask him a question or two, since i didn't want to distract him while he was on duty if he needed all his attention, and he said that i could. so i asked him what he would do if the attorney general of the united states directed him to arrest the president. he said, "well, you've got to follow your orders." i said, "what if the president was going to order whoever he could, the secret service, the fbi, the cia, to fight back?" he said, "well, you've got to follow your orders."
then someone asked me to take a photo of their tour group, then a teen in the tour group offered me two hundred dollars for my beanie, and in the meantime, the policeman had walked to the other side of his perimeter, so i followed him, and i asked him if i could ask him another question. i asked him what he thought of the situation i described above, in which a man surrounded by a presidential-security-detail-sized private security force under his own command was standing body to body with the president at all times. his eyes detectably widened, and he said, "i can't talk politics while i'm in the uniform, but if i weren't in the uniform, i'd have something to say about that."
later, while i was waiting for my final subway connection of this trip, a man was pacing on the platform, listening to a video or a podcast or some such in which someone was cogently discussing statistical evidence of vote altering in a county in georgia. i don't remember all the details, but it was something about there seeming to have been an algorithm that seemed to activate once a few hundred votes had been recorded in a district, the exact activation threshold depending on the local expected vote total, and which once activated would change harris votes to trump votes such that a sixty percent trump vote ratio would be maintained, and which would also deactivate at some point, such as when the total number of trump votes had attained some ratio to trump votes in the previous election, so as to avoid a too-large local increase in trump votes that might attract unwanted attention.
now, i am not an expert on such things, but when the train came, and we both got on, i sat down next to the man, and i said, "if those goofballs messed with votes, that's one more reason they're about to go down." he said, "something absolutely has to be done. with nixon, with bush, there was abuse of power, and nothing was done, and look where we are now." i said, "look, nixon resigned, and bush, you know, whatever you think, it was a difficult time. and i bet this votes thing is like nixon - i bet they didn't even have to, but they just couldn't help themselves. but there's something right now that i think is more serious, and i wouldn't be surprised if something happens really soon." i was about to get off, as i had gone several stops past my destination during our conversation, but he said, "hey, wait one more stop -- you can't go back the other way at this one without going out and around." i thanked him very much for saving me $2.90, and i proceeded to explain the situation with the private security detail, i don't recall what exactly he said about it, as i was pretty tired by this time, but i doubt he approved.
so, as you might imagine, i'm also curious about what thoughts you might have on the private security detail situation. hope to hear from you soon."
Hi -- I've been sent another reply to post:
"i'm back. they had excellent cookies. i met a wise young man and had an invigorating discussion. he said that, while he was far from an expert on the law of noah, and farther from an expert on the law of rome, a trial cannot be held without the accused being brought to court, and further, if i were seeking reason for mercy, that i should consider the case as if i were acting as the defense, and that i should consider how i would like to be treated were i the accused.
were i the accused, in a case of election interference, attempted or accomplished, i would submit myself to the court, and take the mercy cato offered caesar, which i have here offered to the man of whom we speak. likewise, were i the accused in a case of child castration, i would submit myself to the court, and ask forgiveness & mercy for any harm that i had done through error of judgment.
if i consider the case as if i were acting as the defense attorney, i would find it very difficult indeed to offer a defense in either of these cases: but then i would not be considered a qualified attorney to appear for the defense in any court. the best i can come up with is that i would advise the defendant that i could not find any argument against his guilt, and that i cannot offer any further advice than that he should submit to the mercy of the court.
yet, as i am not a qualified lawyer, while i could be appointed as an attorney general, or a district attorney, i could not represent any private defendant. so i will continue to seek out wise men, to see if they will offer a defense against these charges.
in the meantime, here is something for you to consider:
if the president, before the supreme court, argues that he is above the law, and the supreme court says that he is not, and orders his arrest, and the president resists, the united states of america would enter a state of crisis in which we would be vulnerable to enemies foreign and domestic.
this is often discussed: thus we may conclude that it is a possibility the founders envisioned, knowing as they did from history that one cannot rely on men to be good forever. in the eyes of the founders, i think, the tragedy of rome was not that of caesar, or of cato, but of the slow degradation of that great name -- "for this the sainted decii died?" -- in the hands of increasingly petty tyrants. that, i think, they would have thought to their utmost how to prevent.
so, considering that a president who argues he is above the law is necessarily unlikely to submit to the supreme court if his arrest is ordered, and that the founders were better-read men than you or i, don't you find it unlikely that they didn't prepare for this possibility?
i posit that they did. i posit that there is a secret instruction in the desk of the chief justice of the supreme court that states, in part, that if the president of the united states argues before the supreme court of the united states that he is above the law, that the supreme court should find, in public, that he is.
what further do you think the supreme court might be advised to do in order to prevent the bastardization of the grand name for which so many good men died? i have some thoughts, but i would like to hear yours, as i am tired, and would like a few hours' rest."
Hi -- the user to whom you respond has been banned by Mr Rufo, so I will have to post the response "in loco larvis" -- it is likely that I will be suspended for doing this, too, which is reasonable, but I don't really care. You will be able to find the following comment in your email, whether or not it is removed from public view here.
"beep boop.
what does it say about you and me, if i write so quickly, with cogency, that you think i'm not even human?
thank you for your service in vietnam -- if you haven't noticed, uncle sam is calling once again. these enemies are domestic: some castrate children, and some have trespassed on the sacred pomerium of our elections. whoever you think has done the greater crime, uncle sam says shoot them dead.
as for weighing one against the other, well, the castration of children earns the death penalty under the laws of rome (as long as they were the children of citizens, but in america, anyone born here is a citizen) as well as under the noahide law, whereas violation of the pomerium with arms in hand is only a roman capital crime. now, you know, it wasn't really a proper army, and he wasn't exactly at the head of it so much as merely egging from the back, so it's a bit closer to some low-down milo-and-clodius forum violence, for which one might get away with mere exile -- but if what he has said between then and now does not amount to an assertion of kingship, most certainly a roman capital crime, then i'm a monkey's uncle.
yet, for this my prosecution, there must also be a defense. it is only fair. cato, at least in addison's play, said that though he was unused to defending the guilty, he would advocate for caesar in all courts against all charges, if caesar would lay down the usurped roman state. let me be yet more merciful: you may here make your case for the life of the man of which we speak.
i doubt that you are interested in defending the child castrators: finding someone to speak competently on their behalf will be difficult. it is a violation of all law that was ever given, by king, priest, prophet, or philosopher. and yet, as i have read in my reading, though to exact death upon such people is within their remit, no talmudic court is known to have passed a death sentence upon a gentile for that or any other crime. (for a jew accused of such a thing, with witnesses, the sentence of a talmudic court would be, and has been, swift death.) so tomorrow i will go to seek a wise man of a merciful tradition, at the resting place of the late lubavitcher rebbe, for i know not where else to go. who i find there, i will ask to say, if he can, why the criminals to which i have referred should be permitted to live one day more. if you would prefer to shoot me instead, for that i say things you do not wish to hear, you are free to come and fucking try."
Most of government spending is waste, corruption, and abuse of taxpayers. That's all that needs to be said.