Cthulhu p1xg

gorbag Free

Recent Comments

  1. 4 days ago on Non Sequitur

    Why would kids have picked up adults?

  2. 4 days ago on Chip Bok

    The problem here isn’t the corporation, it’s the government, which has an even bigger problem obeying pesky laws or constitutional limits. Hurrah for Apple!

  3. 13 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    Interesting, but not really why I referred to the 1700s. My point was one of psychology: the founders of liberalism thought if we have a system where, say, everyone was 20% better off every period we’d all want to support it. Instead what we find is someone who has 1k, and thus is $200 better off, feels miffed that someone with 1MM is $200k better off. Instead of focusing on their own improvement in circumstances, they focus on the improvement to others even if it is proportionate. (I’m not saying it currently is, I’m saying this finding contradicts one assumption underlying liberalism).

    Some would note that this is the sin of “envy,” and while I would be hypocritical to claim the deadly sins and heavenly virtues are to be practiced by everyone, there is something to be said against a political environment that encourages “envy,” “sloth,” “greed” etc. These faults are not isolated to a particular side of the political spectrum, but does seem to congregate around particular policies that are frequently the result of what most would recognize as “extreme” positions, at least at the time they were introduced.

    Note also that like other political labels, “libertarian” in fact covers a fairly large swath of positions and encompasses individuals who are more left-leaning and right; what unifies us is our belief in pluralism (everyone has their own priorities and ethics, thus universal morality cannot be presumed) and the NAP.

  4. 14 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    It’s a symptom, I agree, but I think you’re missing the fundamental issue: it is a symptom of fear. We used to think that policies (such as traditional liberalism – that is the kind practiced in Europe or here in the late 1700s) of limited government installed to protect individual liberties, property rights, and otherwise staying the heck out of the way would raise all boats and thus everyone would be better off. But people don’t focus on that, they focus on not that they are better off in an absolute sense but only in a relative sense. They don’t care that they are less poor, only that the rich guy is getting more rich at a faster rate.

    The fact that minorities, those who have been discriminated against in the past are doing better should be a cause of celebration. Instead, it is seen as a sign that those who have traditionally done well are doing worse. That they used to be able to piss on their “lessors” – and now those groups are doing better than they are. This is a fear brought on by issues like LGBT, sanctuary cities, jobs lost through globalization, and the very “income inequality” (a nonissue if there ever was one) constantly being rubbed in their faces by some who think they are “enlightened” and just increasing the divide between those who think they are the bedrock of the country, and the “college educated elite” who have taken over since the 50s with their time-and-motion studies, their blue politics, their busybody telling everyone else what they are doing wrong, their political correctness.

    So they are afraid of this loss of stature and they push back, and the way they push back is through supporting nationalism and populism. Now there’s plenty of populism to go around on the left as well. But if you want to see what the future holds, look to the 1930s. Socialism is back after having been given a well deserved death, fascist policies on the rise, and both sides are busy trying to pick out “the enemy” they can rally around fighting xxxx blaming.

  5. 17 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    Yeah, keep deluding yourself and falling for “their” system. You want something different, you have to think outside of their box.

  6. 18 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    Or we can vote for someone not pushed by two large corporate entities. Who has already demonstrated independence of “partisan thinking.”

  7. 19 days ago on Chip Bok

    We can save the nation by handling a landslide to Amash. Plus it would cause palliative reforms at both major political corporations.

  8. 19 days ago on Michael Ramirez

    I wonder if 18USC1001 isn’t the source of the shredding. This dates to 1948, and seems under normal (i.e., not the perverted circumstances we live under) to apply to the questions asked by the FBI as well.

  9. about 1 month ago on Michael Ramirez

    And we hadn’t had a pandemic recently either. Security is about setting yourself up to defend against future threats, and that includes making sure the voting process is above reproach regardless of who sits in DC, your state capitol, etc.

  10. about 2 months ago on Michael Ramirez