Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

You said it was proven beyond a "shadow of a doubt", sorry if maybe I thought were talking about legal context in an exchange related to a pardon for legal convictions. Come on sidis. I don't honestly why you are tilting here. But its a pervasive problem, I understand. 

I think about drugs a lot. It's kinda my gig. I do not favor putting people in jail for non-violent drug offenses. I think that the markets should be legal and have reasonable, evidence- and reality-based regulations. He's been in jail for 10 years and paid like $190MM in fines (not sure what valuation of the bitcoin that is based on). I don't care if he is white black from eanes or whatever. If proven in a court of law that he ordered hits on people or something else, I am ok with locking him up forever. But your amazon reading list isn't going to move the needle for me. 

i am not tilting. i am overly familiar with the facts and circumstances here. you should be too. if you don't want to read the book, that's fine...just like it is fine that you want to to project your misconstruing what i said on to me...but i guess you are under some misimpression that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is some sort of sort of legal or court term. just so you know, it is not. i suspect you are conflating "reasonable doubt" and that is why you are confused. regardless, if you are not willing to read the book and become familiar enough with the facts and circumstances regarding his actions and that the book proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was absolutely engaged in murder for hire, then that's your decision.

you have been having vapors on the other pardon threads for months...overreacting to a bunch of obviously preemptive political persecution actions to guard against the one person you know would actually pursue such action. you accusing anyone of reactionary wilding to the full pardoning of an actual criminal just to buy credit with the libertarian crypto bros is slightly amusing in light of that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

But Biden pardoning Hunter....unforgivable.  Biden pre-emptively pardoning Fauci when numerous voices in the Trump regime have repeatedly called for his fucking EXECUTION....unforgivable.

You always find a way to conclude that what Trump did is at least ok.  Maybe you don't agree with it 100%, but you find a way to conclude it's okay.  Any government official OTHER than Trump does something?  Total condemnation.  You do this to yourself.

Biden said that he wasn't going to pardon Hunter. Media ran with that, until he did. Preemptive pardon for Fauci backdated to 2014 is ridiculous, and even moreso when Jake Sullivan announced a new inquiry into Covid origins like 24 hours earlier. The second paragraph is projection Brisket. Take a step back.  

Posted
Just now, HRSchenker said:

Does Ross get his bitcoin back too? That would make him the world's newest multibillionaire

I'm sure he will argue for it. Maybe the refund will be conditioned on Trump getting at cut of it, though.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Yeah, I think that we are on the same page on this one.

It is clear yall are. "Not knowing specific facts" could be your band name. It also could be, "not attempting to know facts" or my favorite, "not believing facts."

Posted
Just now, Anastasis said:

Biden said that he wasn't going to pardon Hunter. Media ran with that, until he did. Preemptive pardon for Fauci backdated to 2014 is ridiculous, and even moreso when Jake Sullivan announced a new inquiry into Covid origins like 24 hours earlier. The second paragraph is projection Brisket. Take a step back.  

Blah blah blah.  Trump does it -- Ana finds a way to be okay with it, no matter what it is.  Anyone who opposes Trump does something?  Ana will always find some way or reason to condemn it.

It's fascinating to watch.

You insist that you're not a Trumper, while supporting/excusing him with more consistency than even many of the MAGAts I know.  That you fail to see it - or just deny it - is another layer of fascinating.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I think he was overcharged and the sentence was too long. He was still guilty and he still tried to do other crimes.

Right, why commutation makes sense here. And if you ring him up on new charges based on sidis' amazon reading list in front of a jury of his peers, so be it. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

"Not knowing specific facts" could be your band name.

I wouldn't hate playing in a band with Twice. We don't always agree. He would probably frame it less generously than that. But I do respect his perspective and posts. Most of the rest of y'all are real fucking clowns. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Sums your post up. 

"Brainworms.  I don't like or support Trump in any way [I just never fail to excuse/justify/dismiss as meaningless anything he does]."  Save that.  Copy and paste it for all your future posts, and save everyone here the chore of reading your latest round of disingenuous mental gymnastics.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Does Ross get his bitcoin back too? That would make him the world's newest multibillionaire

They are gonna refund his bitcoin with Melania and Trump coins.   Might throw in a couple dozen signed bibles and a pair of those golden trump sneakers.  

Edited by Ted Lange
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

"Brainworms.  I don't like or support Trump in any way [I just never fail to excuse/justify/dismiss as meaningless anything he does]."  Save that.  Copy and paste it for all your future posts, and save everyone here the chore of reading your latest round of disingenuous mental gymnastics.

In all sincerity, I hope you make it through the next four years mentally intact. If this places helps you vent, please use it. 

 

1 minute ago, speed817 said:

We're all female now!!!

 

 

Developmental biology is hard. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, mchookem said:

i thought Trump hated drugs and drug dealers. huh, puzzling.

Good point. I do believe he proposed the death penalty for all drug dealers fairly recently.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Right, why commutation makes sense here. And if you ring him up on new charges based on sidis' amazon reading list in front of a jury of his peers, so be it. 

So you are mad, like the other pardons Biden was a part of, for the pardon? Doesn't sound like it. Do you need to be personally impacted by crimes to give a shit? Does it need to be made more cut and dry by fox news night after night before you care? What is it that will allow you to be more objective with your opinions?

He ran a massive operation profiting billions off of illicit crimes. He is no better or worse than el chapo or any other kingpin that deserves to be jailed for the rest of their life.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I’ll wait for you to actually denounce and condemn something meaningful that Trump does. That will be my entertainment these four years.
You gotta find amusement where you can. Your disingenuous gymnastics are good for that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, HOOKEM4 said:

So you are mad, like the other pardons Biden was a part of, for the pardon? Doesn't sound like it. Do you need to be personally impacted by crimes to give a shit? Does it need to be made more cut and dry by fox news night after night before you care? What is it that will allow you to be more objective with your opinions?

I don't think that a full and unconditional pardon was warranted. I think that a commutation for the nearly 10 years in prison would be appropriate. I haven't seen the actual pardon language, but if it leaves him at risk for prosecution for a murder for hire plot, that would seem appropriate. I haven't seen the fox news take, but feel free to post it and we can discuss.  

Posted
6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Imagine being a grown-up with a job and a retirement account and identifying as a libertarian.  So embarrassing. 

I remember when I was 20 and thought I was a libertarian. Fun times. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

He's not "pro crime."  He's just an ardent believer in "if Trump did it, I can always explain it away/excuse it."

And laissez-faire capitalism

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Posted
35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Blah blah blah.  Trump does it -- Ana finds a way to be okay with it, no matter what it is.  Anyone who opposes Trump does something?  Ana will always find some way or reason to condemn it.

It's fascinating to watch.

You insist that you're not a Trumper, while supporting/excusing him with more consistency than even many of the MAGAts I know.  That you fail to see it - or just deny it - is another layer of fascinating.

There's nothing fascinating about it. All the posters pretending at being an honest broker become clowns. Some rather quickly (LonghornLaw/Laphraig/another handle I forget), some on a bit longer timeline (TahoeHorn). Ana has reached the late stages here, having fooled a bunch of us for a long time, but getting near universal pushback on his nonsense. It's time to let him talk to the void more often. He avoids the buzz words, but like the others of his kind, he's "just asking questions."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

“This just shows that both sides are corrupt”

-Anastasis (probably) who is very serious about corruption 

All the posters pretending at being an honest broker become clowns.

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Imagine being a grown-up with a job and a retirement account and identifying as a libertarian.  So embarrassing. 

I've seen this sentiment a lot on Surly.  Can someone explain what aspects of libertarianism are in opposition to having a job and a retirement account?

I'm talking about definitional libertarianism, not the brand exhibited by the rightwing nutjobs that claim to be libertarian but are really just pro-gun, Evangelical Christian, MAGAts.

Just curious, because when I see the following definition, from Wikipedia, it resonates with me.

Quote

Libertarians advocate for the expansion of individual autonomy and political self-determination, emphasizing the principles of equality before the law and the protection of civil rights, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of choice. They generally support individual liberty and oppose authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism.

Thanks in advance

Edited by DixonHur
Posted
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I've seen this sentiment a lot on Surly.  Can someone explain what aspects of libertarianism are in opposition to having a job and a retirement account?

I'm talking about definitional libertarianism, not the brand exhibited by the rightwing nutjobs that claim to be libertarian but are really just pro-gun, Evangelical Christian, MAGAts.

Just curious, because when I see the following definition, from Wikipedia, it resonates with me.

Thanks in advance

Retirement accounts wouldn't exist without the state. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Retirement accounts wouldn't exist without the state. 

In a sense, they do, if you consider having a bigger arsenal and an easier position to defend than all your neighbors an "account." 

Posted

Because it’s not terribly different than communism: pie-in-the-sky concepts that sound lovely…and don’t survive their first contact with basic human nature. “Libertarianism” becomes a toxic stew of anarcho-capitalism, consolidated oligarchical power, and the tragedy of the commons. Just like communism immediately descends into a lack of real production and innovation, with the only success story being a small cadre of elites.
Do you like clean and reliable drinking water, fire protection, a network of usable and accessible roads, a somewhat educated population, basic shit like that? Libertarianism in practice hates those things. Nothing has value unless it can yield profit, and only maximum profit is good. There is no public or common good.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Retirement accounts wouldn't exist without the state. 

Neither would taxes, so, profit? Nevermind that the sewers would be backing up into the streets.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

“This just shows that both sides are corrupt”

-Anastasis (probably) who is very serious about corruption 

 

FYI - Yashar Ali is also on Blue Sky, which also embeds on Surly. Carry on.

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

I had never paid attention to the Silk Road stuff.   Just finished the 1st part of this long form.   This is some wild stuff, end of the first part goes into murder for hire, and now I’m curious how he wasn’t charged for that.   Onto part 2.

https://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-1/

This part made me chuckle, given the recent posts

image.thumb.png.c0dca880979e73f36cf10033033c623b.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Retirement accounts wouldn't exist without the state. 

How so?  All my retirement savings are in the stock market.  

Not trying to be argumentative, I just want to learn.

Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

How so?  All my retirement savings are in the stock market.  

Not trying to be argumentative, I just want to learn.

Do you think the stock market would exist without the state?

Posted
15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I've seen this sentiment a lot on Surly.  Can someone explain what aspects of libertarianism are in opposition to having a job and a retirement account?

I'm talking about definitional libertarianism, not the brand exhibited by the rightwing nutjobs that claim to be libertarian but are really just pro-gun, Evangelical Christian, MAGAts.

Just curious, because when I see the following definition, from Wikipedia, it resonates with me.

Thanks in advance

Definitionally, you wander into a contradiction because the existence of equality before “the law” and civil rights requires some form of authority and power (whether state or otherwise) to secure those things and so being for one while opposing the other is incoherent.  There are three ways to reconcile this contradiction:

1. Become an inveterate contrarian asshole who accepts the need for some state power and authority but constantly whines that the state can’t get the fine-tuning PERFECTLY right and therefore the whole exercise is illegitimate. 
 

2. Become an insufferable undergrad or online pseudo intellectual and prattle about how “private enterprise” or “anarchy-libertarianism” gets you out of this contradiction. 
 

3. Become a sovereign citizen loon.  This is really the most honest and at least entertaining option. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Because it’s not terribly different than communism: pie-in-the-sky concepts that sound lovely…and don’t survive their first contact with basic human nature. “Libertarianism” becomes a toxic stew of anarcho-capitalism, consolidated oligarchical power, and the tragedy of the commons. Just like communism immediately descends into a lack of real production and innovation, with the only success story being a small cadre of elites.
Do you like clean and reliable drinking water, fire protection, a network of usable and accessible roads, a somewhat educated population, basic shit like that? Libertarianism in practice hates those things. Nothing has value unless it can yield profit, and only maximum profit is good. There is no public or common good.

But isn't this true of any social arrangement?

The libertarian concept I took from the above definition doesn't preclude taxation ...

Anyway, I understand the argument of simplistic, but I think all systems of government and economics suffer from the same fate when introduced to human nature.  I'd just like a system where the government is designed to take care of the citizens basic needs but no laws governing morality that doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.  IE murder, theft, etc.



×
×
  • Create New...