RT @mitchellvii: Ok, just keeping score here:
Democrats believe in:
1) Liars.
2) No evidence.
3) No due process.
4) No civil rights.
5) Nā¦
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-24 02:48:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044055900531642368
You are gonna love this constitution. Just…. love it. No more powerlessness in the face of procedural and political failure.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-23 18:33:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1043931305883439104
You are gonna love this constitution. Just…. love it. No more powerlessness in the face of procedural and political failure.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-23 14:33:00 UTC
September 22nd, 2018 12:19 PM
ON THE DEATH PENALTY
Reposted by @[100015734649811:2048:Ryan Williams]
—“The problem with the modern state is not that it uses the death penalty so much, but rather that it uses it far too little. Property in toto serves as a useful metric for what crimes merit the death penalty. if you use fraud, deceit, or some other non reciprocal criminal means of enriching yourself at the expense of the commons above some arbitrary number, say 5x the average lifetime taxes paid by an average taxpayer, you should face execution. Under such a scheme, nearly every tech monopolist, the Walton family, Bezos, any of the financial elite, nearly every politician and most high ranking bureaucrats would be liable for death. NYT editors lie in the newspapers and it costs 5x the taxes paid of average worker? Boom. no more problem with lying editors at the NYT. The whole West faces the double problem of a violent, dependent underclass and a parasitical, exploitative oligarchy controlling business and politics. Such measures might seem unduly harsh, but they are necessary. Brazil shows why they must be implemented, Singapore shows that they work.”—-
September 22nd, 2018 12:19 PM
ON THE DEATH PENALTY
Reposted by @[100015734649811:2048:Ryan Williams]
—“The problem with the modern state is not that it uses the death penalty so much, but rather that it uses it far too little. Property in toto serves as a useful metric for what crimes merit the death penalty. if you use fraud, deceit, or some other non reciprocal criminal means of enriching yourself at the expense of the commons above some arbitrary number, say 5x the average lifetime taxes paid by an average taxpayer, you should face execution. Under such a scheme, nearly every tech monopolist, the Walton family, Bezos, any of the financial elite, nearly every politician and most high ranking bureaucrats would be liable for death. NYT editors lie in the newspapers and it costs 5x the taxes paid of average worker? Boom. no more problem with lying editors at the NYT. The whole West faces the double problem of a violent, dependent underclass and a parasitical, exploitative oligarchy controlling business and politics. Such measures might seem unduly harsh, but they are necessary. Brazil shows why they must be implemented, Singapore shows that they work.”—-
—The International Criminal Court (ICC) is “already dead to us” National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Federalist Society recently. The U.S. will, he said, resist the court “by any means necessary.”
Why would the Trump Administration take such a hard line against “the world’s court of last resort”? Founded in 2002, in the wake of the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides and mass rapes, the international body was supposed to try evildoers who would otherwise escape justice due to broken legal systems in failed states.
Opposing the court is not a new position for the U.S. or Ambassador Bolton. The Bush Administration refused to sign the court’s implementing treaty in 2003, contending that it would lead to trials of U.S. soldiers and spies by a politically turbo-charged body located in Europe. At the time, many European leaders opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq and questioned its actions in the war on terror, including rendition and holding prisoners indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Ambassador Bolton was even more prescient. He warned, in 1998, when the formation of body was first being debated in Rome, that it would be ineffective, unaccountable and overly political.”—-
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 18:53:00 UTC
September 21st, 2018 6:53 PM
—The International Criminal Court (ICC) is “already dead to us” National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Federalist Society recently. The U.S. will, he said, resist the court “by any means necessary.” Why would the Trump Administration take such a hard line against “the world’s court of last resort”? Founded in 2002, in the wake of the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides and mass rapes, the international body was supposed to try evildoers who would otherwise escape justice due to broken legal systems in failed states. Opposing the court is not a new position for the U.S. or Ambassador Bolton. The Bush Administration refused to sign the court’s implementing treaty in 2003, contending that it would lead to trials of U.S. soldiers and spies by a politically turbo-charged body located in Europe. At the time, many European leaders opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq and questioned its actions in the war on terror, including rendition and holding prisoners indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Ambassador Bolton was even more prescient. He warned, in 1998, when the formation of body was first being debated in Rome, that it would be ineffective, unaccountable and overly political.”—-
September 21st, 2018 6:53 PM
—The International Criminal Court (ICC) is “already dead to us” National Security Adviser John Bolton told the Federalist Society recently. The U.S. will, he said, resist the court “by any means necessary.” Why would the Trump Administration take such a hard line against “the world’s court of last resort”? Founded in 2002, in the wake of the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides and mass rapes, the international body was supposed to try evildoers who would otherwise escape justice due to broken legal systems in failed states. Opposing the court is not a new position for the U.S. or Ambassador Bolton. The Bush Administration refused to sign the court’s implementing treaty in 2003, contending that it would lead to trials of U.S. soldiers and spies by a politically turbo-charged body located in Europe. At the time, many European leaders opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq and questioned its actions in the war on terror, including rendition and holding prisoners indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Ambassador Bolton was even more prescient. He warned, in 1998, when the formation of body was first being debated in Rome, that it would be ineffective, unaccountable and overly political.”—-
FASCIST? I’M A FASCIST?
Yeah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets that produce prosperity, Family as the central object of policy, paying the underclass not to breed, direct redistribution of liquidity and the polity’s dividends, ending all rent seeking and parasitism both political, financial, and commercial. Exclusionary Nationalism as a means of increasing tolerance for inter-class redistribution, increasing the opportunity for local status attainment; producing commons suitable to the demographics; reducing all possible costs of mutual cooperation and invention; public-private investment in technological, industrial, and commercial innovation. And total suppression of political warfare to impose any alternative.
Yeah. Well, that’s my version of Natural Law and it looks a whole lot like NATIONAL SOCIALISM without the silly mustache.
So yeah. In the sense that fascism refers to zero tolerance for opposition to all of the above, I’m definitely a fascist.
And if you aren’t also then you have no idea what you’re saying other than advocating for free riding, parasitism and predation upon others.
So the question is, if you’re not the same kind of fascist, then you’re by definition an unethical and immoral enemy of not only me and mine but all mankind.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-18 15:12:00 UTC
September 18th, 2018 3:12 PM FASCIST? I’M A FASCIST? [Y]eah. So… Truth, Reciprocity, Rule of Law, Markets that produce prosperity, Family as the central object of policy, paying the underclass not to breed, direct redistribution of liquidity and the polity’s dividends, ending all rent seeking and parasitism both political, financial, and commercial. Exclusionary Nationalism as a means of increasing tolerance for inter-class redistribution, increasing the opportunity for local status attainment; producing commons suitable to the demographics; reducing all possible costs of mutual cooperation and invention; public-private investment in technological, industrial, and commercial innovation. And total suppression of political warfare to impose any alternative. Yeah. Well, that’s my version of Natural Law and it looks a whole lot like NATIONAL SOCIALISM without the silly mustache. So yeah. In the sense that fascism refers to zero tolerance for opposition to all of the above, I’m definitely a fascist. And if you aren’t also then you have no idea what you’re saying other than advocating for free riding, parasitism and predation upon others. So the question is, if you’re not the same kind of fascist, then you’re by definition an unethical and immoral enemy of not only me and mine but all mankind.