Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Eh, I'm not sure SECOND actually believes what he posts, and belief is the hallmark of cultism. No, he's just throwing any old piece of go se he can find, whether it's consistent with anything else he posts OR NOT; or addresses the topic OR NOT; or is factual OR NOT; or is truthfully represented OR NOT.

---

Of course he doesn't believe what he posts.

He's not interested in making sense. If he was, he would have made sense of his own behavior a long time ago. He embodies everything that's wrong with Democrats today: a hollow virtue-signalling golem, consumed by guilt and blaming everyone else for his failures. Except, unlike many of the hand-wringing virtue signallers whose sense of guilt was artificially promoted from the outside (guilty for being white, guilty for emitting carbon dioxide, etc) he really DOES have a reason to feel guilty, because he killed people.

And that's something he just can't live with.

And then, instead of being punished by the law or by god for killing people, he got rich. And that added to his feelings of guilt. But he just can't give up the money either, like he can't accept his moral failures ( Thou shalt not kill. I'm sure that was drummed into his head when he was growing up.) so he resolves the issue by blaming everyone but himself for what he's done.

That's why he grabs anything he can and flings it against this wall, whether it makes sense or not.

It's twisted, but I get it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Eh, I'm not sure SECOND actually believes what he posts, and belief is the hallmark of cultism. No, he's just throwing any old piece of go se he can find, whether it's consistent with anything else he posts OR NOT; or addresses the topic OR NOT; or is factual OR NOT; or is truthfully represented OR NOT.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


Of course he doesn't believe what he posts.

He's not interested in making sense. If he was, he would have made sense of his own behavior a long time ago. He embodies everything that's wrong with Democrats today: a hollow virtue-signalling golem, consumed by guilt and blaming everyone else for his failures. Except, unlike many of the hand-wringing virtue signallers whose sense of guilt was artificially promoted from the outside (guilty for being white, guilty for emitting carbon dioxide, etc) he really DOES have a reason to feel guilty, because he killed people.

And that's something he just can't live with.

And then, instead of being punished by the law or by god for killing people, he got rich. And that added to his feelings of guilt. But he just can't give up the money either, like he can't accept his moral failures ( Thou shalt not kill. I'm sure that was drummed into his head when he was growing up.) so he resolves the issue by blaming everyone but himself for what he's done.

That's why he grabs anything he can and flings it against this wall, whether it makes sense or not.

It's twisted, but I get it.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Nor does it explain his fascination with killing people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Republicans largely ignore moral stain of child poverty

Imagine you have some neighbors in a mansion down the road who pamper one child with a credit card, the best private school and a Tesla.

The parents treat most of their other kids decently but not lavishly — and then you discover that the family consigns one child to an unheated, vermin-infested room in the basement, denying her dental care and often leaving her without food.

You’d call 911 to report child abuse. You’d say those responsible should be locked up. You’d steam about how vile adults must be to allow a child to suffer like that.

But that’s us. That household, writ large, is America and our moral stain of child poverty.

Some American children attend $70,000-a-year nursery schools, but 12 million kids live in households that lack food. The United States has long had one of the highest rates of child poverty in the advanced world — and then the coronavirus pandemic aggravated the suffering.

Now we could have a thrilling breakthrough: President Biden included a proposal in his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan that one study says would cut child poverty by half. We in the news media have focused on direct payments to individuals, but the historic element of Biden’s plan is its effort to slash child poverty.

“The American Rescue Plan is the most ambitious proposal to reduce child poverty ever proposed by an American president,” Jason Furman, a Harvard economist, told me.

A couple of decades from now, America will be pretty much the same whether direct payments end up being $1,000 or $1,400. But this will be a transformed nation if we’re able to shrink child poverty on our watch.

So the most distressing part of 10 Republican senators’ counterproposal to Biden was their decision to drop the plan to curb child poverty. Please, Mr. President, don’t budge on this.

And senators, what are you thinking? Is the supposedly “pro-family” party battling to preserve child poverty?

“So many of them speak about religion and Jesus and children,” Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat who has long pushed for these anti-poverty measures, told me. “How do you leave behind millions of children and their families living in poverty?”

Perhaps some misread the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus says (19:14) “suffer the little children” to approach him; he absolutely does not recommend “the little children shall suffer.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/opinion/biden-child-poverty.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

You can't eliminate poverty by "giving" people money. All that does is create dependency on aid. You can only create wealth by having a robust economy in which everyone who can work has a meaningful job at living wages. Blah, blah, blah, the usual Republican bullshit about the wonders of Capitalism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Go give your money away if it makes you feel so guilty, idiot.

Stop spending other people's money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fuck you, cultist.

Done with your bullshit for today.

---

Quote:

---

The Terrifying Warning Lurking in the Earth’s Ancient Rock Record

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

The Terrifying Warning Lurking in the Earth’s Ancient Rock Record

---

And when Biden* fails to keep his promises - or even promote them - I'll be happy to laugh at his skinny saggy ass parading all over town in his New Clothes™.

The global climate doesn't care how much virtue signalling anybody does - not even you, SECOND.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM: You can't eliminate poverty by "giving" people money. All that does is create dependency on aid. You can only create wealth by having a robust economy in which everyone who can work has a meaningful job at living wages. Blah, blah, blah, the usual Republican bullshit about the wonders of Capitalism.

SECONDATE: Fuck you goddamn tax-cheating cheapskate Trumptards. It can be done with money. And don't give me your warped lessons on Economics because neither Signym or 1kiki know what they are talking about:
https://www.google.com/search?q=end+poverty+by+giving+people+money

---

Quote:

---

It will take more than a decade to determine the impact.

---

Quote:

---

... Otieno is that he's an entrepreneurial sort of guy who all his life has been striving to climb out of poverty — only to find himself blocked by a lack of funds.

Despite a tough start in life ... straight out of high school he got himself into a training program for mechanics. He managed to land a job repairing cars, thanks to a relative who worked at the same company in one of Kenya's cities. Then that company closed. Since then, Otieno says, he has found it impossible to find another position.

---

Quote:

---

He has also tried starting various small businesses — including a kind of bar, selling drinks to fishermen out of a gazebo on the shore of Lake Victoria. The trouble: To get the bar off the ground, Otieno had to take out a loan of about a thousand dollars at an interest rate of nearly 25 percent. Now the payments are crushing him. "Each day, whatever sales I make I just send to the bank," Otieno says. "You end up working for the bank."

---

Quote:

---

Odero insisted on helping.

His family says he's constantly trying to prove he can be useful — be independent. But people hesitate to hire him for even odd jobs. He'll go out with the other young guys to look for work. Then watch as everyone gets picked but him.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, have you figured out where you went wrong in understanding my post?

You seem to think that I'm some sort of Republican grinch who barely peel a dollar offa wad of cash to better anyone's life.

What you failed to understand is that EVERYTHING that I posted about: retrofitting homes, rebuilding infrastructure, teaching and healing, environmental stewardship ... even investing in factories and steel mills and cement plants, if private investors fail to show up ... takes government money.

LOTS of government money. It's not that I'm unwilling to tax the wealthy to spend government money. And it's not that I don't want to reduce the wealth gap ... of course I do! And it's not that I don't want people's lives to be better ... of course I do!

But you don't reduce poverty by HANDOUTS. You reduce poverty by changing the rules of the game, by rewarding work, not speculation or rentier capitalism or monopolism.

You have never understood my signature, have you?
PITY WOULD BE NO MORE,
IF WE DID NOT MAKE MEN POOR

There will always be some who will need more than they can immediately return to society: the very young, the very old, the sick and the disabled. But MOST people are able to create a good life for themselves and their families if the deck wasn't already stacked against them. And that deck-stacking ... it's not natural or inevitable, it was a conscious choice made by the wealthy who gained control of government and changed the rules of the game to favor themselves.

It's really obvious. A bright guy like you claim to be should be able to see this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, SECONDRATE, I see you decided to ignore this:
You have never understood my signature, have you?
PITY WOULD BE NO MORE,
IF WE DID NOT MAKE MEN POOR

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Jesus Christ.

And Nilbog says that I'M the narcissist on this board.

Inflated ego much?


What a piece of shit.


--------------------------------------------------

A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fuck you, cultist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Fuck you, cultist.

---

Projection, much?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, have you figured out where you went wrong in understanding my post?

You seem to think that I'm some sort of Republican grinch who barely peel a dollar offa wad of cash to better anyone's life.

What you failed to understand is that EVERYTHING that I posted about: retrofitting homes, rebuilding infrastructure, teaching and healing, environmental stewardship ... even investing in factories and steel mills and cement plants, if private investors fail to show up ... takes government money.

LOTS of government money. It's not that I'm unwilling to tax the wealthy to spend government money. And it's not that I don't want to reduce the wealth gap ... of course I do! And it's not that I don't want people's lives to be better ... of course I do!

But you don't reduce poverty by HANDOUTS. You reduce poverty by changing the rules of the game, by rewarding work, not speculation or rentier capitalism or monopolism.

You have never understood my signature, have you?
PITY WOULD BE NO MORE,
IF WE DID NOT MAKE MEN POOR

There will always be some who will need more than they can immediately return to society: the very young, the very old, the sick and the disabled. But MOST people are able to create a good life for themselves and their families if the deck wasn't already stacked against them. And that deck-stacking ... it's not natural or inevitable, it was a conscious choice made by the wealthy who gained control of government and changed the rules of the game to favor themselves.

It's really obvious. A bright guy like you claim to be should be able to see this.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

TPTB decided to eliminate manufacturing for financialism. But that doesn't create wealth, it just concentrates money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Christopher Lasch would say I over-simplified his books, removing all the beautifully worded nuance,

---

He'd probably claim that you've pasteurized the natural bouquet of his farts.



--------------------------------------------------

A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

I agree - the 99% have never tested the power of the vote. And I would very like to see what would happen if we did.

But I suspect if we did the US would have a REAL coup - like in Myanmar - instead of the (giggle giggle) 'coup' in Washington a few weeks ago that everyone is fainting over.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
When the bottom finally revolts, I don't expect them to show much sense in how they use their new found power/b]

---

It's called Zipf's Law, dipshit.

Just like if the word "the" was banned, some other word would take it's place as the most commonly used word constituting 7% of all words spoken or written, if the entire system were to be burned to the ground a vacuum would be created where a brand new 1% would eventually control everything.

You don't even have to play make believe to theorize this. Just look at any third world shithole and what goes on after we fund a coup and help out with some drone strikes.



--------------------------------------------------

A government is a body of people usually, notably, governed by Mark Zuckerborg and Slack Dorsey.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
When the bottom finally revolts, I don't expect them to show much sense in how they use their new found power

---

It's called Zipf's Law, dipshit.

Just like if the word "the" was banned, some other word would take it's place as the most commonly used word constituting 7% of all words spoken or written, if the entire system were to be burned to the ground a vacuum would be created where a brand new 1% would eventually control everything.

You don't even have to play make believe to theorize this. Just look at any third world shithole and what goes on after we fund a coup and help out with some drone strikes.

---

Quote:

---

Try googling Are there any theories about why societies fail? https://www.google.com/search?q=are+there+any+theories+about+why+socie
ties+fail

---

Quote:

---

Starting about 500 years ago, from Mexico all the way to Argentina, European diseases killed off the Top 1% of society.

---

Quote:

---

It is estimated that 90% of the indigenous population had been eliminated by disease within the first century of European contact. WIKI

---

Quote:

---

killing the brains of a society does have explanatory power

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Says the Russian troll who lies for a living. ^ Kill yourself, POS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

TPTB decided to eliminate manufacturing for financialism. But that doesn't create wealth, it just concentrates money.

---

Let's translate that to reality. TPTB is short for The Powers That Be, who are the top 1% of wealth in America. Since WWII, maybe even before that, the Top 1% have ever so slowly, and then faster and faster, shifted their decisions to benefit themselves more and more while benefiting the bottom 99% less and less. The expectation was that the Federal government would step up to the responsibility as the Top 1% stepped down, in the same way as the Federal government took responsibility for ending the Great Depression. The Top 1% have watched with bemusement as the voters in the bottom 99% have squabbled over the size of Federal government's role in looking after the bottom 99%.

---

Quote:

---

SECONDRATE Try googling Are there any theories about why societies fail? https://www.google.com/search?q=are+there+any+theories+about+why+socie
ties+fail

Starting about 500 years ago, from Mexico all the way to Argentina, European diseases killed off the Top 1% of society. With what was left of the Top 1% decapitated by Conquistadors, the next best people did NOT have the mental fortitude it takes to keep society running. Those civilizations left their ruins for tourists. The decedents of the Latin American 99% are living very poorly, making careers as tour guides, waiters, maids or picking bananas in the Banana Republics. Nobody from the lower levels of society stepped up to take the responsibilities that had been handled by the Top 1%.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The top 1% don't take "responsibility", they are parasites, leeches, on the economy.

Do I want the government to take over the role of being the big leech on the carotid of the economy?

OF COURSE NOT.

What I want the government to do is take a proactive role in limiting the powers of TPTB, leveling the playing field, and reducing the parasitism of the top 1%.

---

Quote:

---

How Stupid Are We ?
General Idiocy – Individual Examples – Solutions
The Republican Party Iz On The Line

It’s Monday, February 8th 2021. Tomarow, Trump’s impeachment trial beginz in the Senate. Sins it takes a 2/3 majority to convict, it will take at least 17 Republicanz and all 50 Democrats.

It duznt seem likely at this point.

---

Quote:

---

The R congressmen and senatorz are still defending Trump after he attempted a self coup.

---

Quote:

---

Sins then the party haz defended a newly seated freshman Congresswoman hoo haz supported the insurrectionists

---

Quote:

---

(az well az espousing all sorts uv demented conspirasy theoryz)

---

Quote:

---

wile taking an emerjensy vote to deside wether to sensure their own 3rd ranking senior member for the crime uv voting to impeach Trump.

Seriously.

Wut, you may want to ask them after this, coud Trump possibly do to dezerv impeachment?

---

Quote:

---

Shoot sumwun on 5th Avenue*, like he boasted in 2016 and still get the R votes?

Well, 7 peepl are ded kuz uv the insurrection. A cop and 5 rioterz killed, then 2 cops later commited suiside. So, check the OK box for that.

---

Quote:

---

Commit acts that woud clearly fall outside uv the ‘Christian Values’ the party claimz az their own?

---

Quote:

---

That wun iz ded on arrival. Comicly ded! Repeatedly, serially ded and buried!

---

Quote:

---

If youv been living in a cave on Pluto, maybe you missed all uv the sex offensez that hav come to lite over the last 6 yirz, any wun uv wich, if commited by a Dem Prez, woud hav Republican larynxez landing on the House chamber carpet from them screaming for impeachment.

And Treazon haz alredy been approved by the party, the entire rite wing media and the voterz. They are all partisipating on sum level in hiz collusion with Putin.

---

Quote:

---

Therez nothing left.

(at least nothing reazonable. I can imajin all sorts uv sordid actionz and statements that woud sertainly get him booted out, but even with thoze there woud still be sum appolijist wakkoz concocting cockamamy conspirasy theoryz trying to blame Obama or Hillary)

Over the next few weeks the Senate Republicanz are going to be desiding wether they want to keep Trump az their leader.

They long ago desided they are not Americanz. Their loyalty iz to The Party in spite uv the oath they took to uphold The Constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Now they hav 2 choisez:

---

Quote:

---

1. Cut their lossez. Give up on the Trump cult voting block and work to rebild the party’z imaj.

OR

2. Admit he ownz the Republican Party. Sine the title over to him. Forever. To be passed on to Don Jr. after he kiks the buket.

---

Quote:

---

Most uv them are too stupid to realize it, but thats wut this impeachment hearing iz about.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Trump did win.

Fake election was fake.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Trump did win.

Fake election was fake.

---

That's what Trump said.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump may be the most convicted man never charged in America. According to media reports, the Justice Department has decided not to charge Trump with campaign finance violations related to hush money paid to former stripper Stormy Daniels. What was touted by many experts as a slam-dunk criminal charge has now joined a long list of alleged crimes that once were nightly cable-news sensations.

The disconnect between legal analysis and legal reality matters little in today’s media. Many of the same experts now trumpet the charge of criminal incitement in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. In their minds — unsurprisingly — it is another open-and-shut case. For four years, they have supplied a stream of allegations, all described as conclusive, to feed readers’ and viewers’ insatiable appetites. The campaign finance charge actually was one of the more credible claims, since former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to it. However, such crimes are notoriously difficult to litigate, as shown by the failed 2012 prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards.

Many of these alleged criminal acts were presented as reassuringly simple and straightforward. Former prosecutor and Washington Post columnist Randall D. Eliason insisted Trump committed bribery in the Ukraine scandal since “allegations of a wrongful quid pro quo are really just another way of saying that there was a bribe … it’s bribery if a quid pro quo is sought with corrupt intent, if the president is not pursuing legitimate U.S. policy but instead is wrongfully demanding actions by Ukraine that would benefit him personally.”

---

Quote:

---

It did not matter that the Supreme Court has roundly rejected such sweeping interpretations of bribery, extortion and related political corruption.
Others claimed Trump committed “felony bribery” by fundraising for Republican senators when he was about to be impeached.

---

Quote:

---

Former CNN legal analyst and former House impeachment counsel Norm Eisen claimed that, by not responding to Russian aggression,

---

Quote:

---

Trump was “colluding in plain sight”

---

Quote:

---

and the criminal case against him for obstruction of justice was “devastating.” That was in 2018.

Former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman said Donald Trump Jr.’s emails about meeting with Russians at Trump Tower were “almost a smoking cannon,” adding that “there’s almost no question this is treason.”

---

Quote:

---

Professor Richard Painter claimed a clear case for treason. Harvard professor Laurence Tribe declared Trump’s dictation of a misleading statement about the Trump Tower meeting constituted witness tampering; Tribe previously found compelling evidence of obstruction of justice, criminal election violations, Logan Act violations, extortion and possible treason by Trump or his family.

Now, experts claim Trump’s Jan. 6 speech clearly was criminal incitement.

---

Quote:

---

Said CNN legal analyst Elie Honig: “As a prosecutor I’d gladly show a jury Trump’s own inflammatory statements and argue they cross the line to criminality.” Richard Ashby Wilson, associate law school dean at the University of Connecticut, said “Trump crossed the Rubicon and incited a mob to attack the U.S. Capitol as Congress was in the process of tallying the Electoral College vote results. He should be criminally indicted for inciting insurrection against our democracy.”

Many were quick to repeat their certainty of yet another criminal act. Tribe declared: “This guy was inciting not just imminent lawless action, but the violent decapitation of a coordinate branch of the government, preventing this peaceful transition of power and putting a violent mob into the Capitol while he cheered them on.” Bolstering such claims, District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine said he was investigating Trump for a possible incitement charge.

What’s strange is that there’s no word of an interview, let alone a charge, on a purportedly clear crime committed more than a month ago. One possible reason is that it would collapse in court. It is much easier to claim easy prosecutions than to prosecute such made-for-TV charges. I do not fault experts for speculating about such a case — but many are claiming, again, that prosecution would be relatively easy. That simply is not true.

The problem is free speech. Trump’s Jan. 6 speech would not satisfy the test in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court said even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. Trump did not call for the use of force but actually told people to protest “peacefully” and to “cheer on” their allies in Congress. He later — and too belatedly — repeated that after violence erupted, telling his supporters to respect and obey the Capitol Police.

Racine showed how disconnected these theories are from case law. He noted that Trump failed to “calm them down or at least emphasize the peaceful nature of what protests need to be.” Setting aside that Trump did tell them to protest peacefully, his failure to calm down a crowd is not criminal incitement by omission.

Trump does face ongoing liability — largely the same threats that existed before he became president, in the form of bank, tax and business investigations. But the litany of crimes breathlessly suggested over the last four years passed without charges. Nevertheless, experts have lined up to argue now that there are no free-speech or legal barriers to prosecuting Trump for incitement.

---

Quote:

---

There is now a difference, however: There’s no longer an excuse that Trump cannot be indicted in office (which I do not believe is true), or that he would just pardon himself (which he didn’t do despite predictions he would). What was conveniently hypothetical can be an actual prosecution today. If criminal incitement is such a strong case, make it — charge him. Of course, such prosecutions could come at a cost. Unless there is evidence of direct intent, Trump is likely to prevail at trial or on appeal. He then could claim not just vindication on a federal charge but also on his second impeachment.

There is no crime of incitement for legal analysts who exaggerate or oversimplify criminal provisions; the public can be whipped into a frenzy with claims of easy prosecutions or slam-dunk charges. Many people are addicted to rage and these claims, even if illusory, feed that addiction. It is all entertainment until someone actually tries to bring a prosecution — and that is when reality sets in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I don't give a single shit what Trump said.

Mail in ballots are a fraud. Any vote without ID is a fraud.

Any election that allows mail in ballots and no picture ID required when voting is a fraud.

This entire Covid thing was the Democrats getting in bed with the Chinese and figuratively going nuclear to get Trump out of office because despite 4 years of media collusion it was very clear by early 2020 that Trump was going to destroy the Democratic nominee.

---