Muda69

Had to pick up on with a written medium like an internet message forum. If it was sarcasm then I suggest you preface such posts/passages with a <sarcasm> starting tag and a </sarcasm> ending tag. Your attempt at sarcasm reminds me of this non-sarcastic clip about Noodle Boy:

I hope so. Field turf at the high school level is an unnecessary extravagance.

Thank you. If these truly are the practices of the "Freedom Cafe" and they are condoned by the ownership then it will likely soon go out of business.

Agreed. Depends on a what point you believe a fetus becomes a "baby". And if you truly believe in personal freedom then the state has no business telling what an adult can do with their body, or the contents within it.

Caveat Emptor.

No, it is not.

Hope springs eternal.

I guess to progressives the ends always justify the means. Current death rate in the U.S. from Coronavirus as a percentage of the overall U.S. population: 0.039%

The Next Pandemic Will Be Caused by the National Debt. It Will Crater the Economy. https://reason.com/video/the-next-pandemic-will-be-caused-by-the-national-debt-it-will-crater-the-economy/ Yep, the devastation that will be caused by the debt crisis will make the coronavirus pandemic look like a drop in the bucket. At yet all the MSM harps about is "Orange Man Bad" and "Wear Masks or Die!". The uni-party is destroying this country, and sacrificing the future of our children and grandchildren for votes and power. Sickening.

Yes, more "free stuff" in the form of the asinine "health care is a human right" mantra of the progressive left.

If you can refute any of his points, along with those of Mr. Solon, then please do so. But we understand that to millennials like yourself it is all about the cult of personality.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clintonera-roots-of-the-financial-crisis-1376348141 https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillary-and-bill-cause-of-housing-financial-crisis/ http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html https://reason.com/2012/10/14/clintons-legacy-the-financial-and-housin/

Voting for a third party candidate has at least two things gong for it: 1. It is not a vote for Mr. Biden. 2. It is not a vote for Mr. Trump. And if you can't find a presidential candidate, unit-party or not, that best aligns with your own personal morals and worldview then don't vote. It is not a horse race.

The power of the state to order the populace to do something and their will to aggressively enforce that law are two different things. https://media.phoneboy.com/najingles/RuleFollower.mp3

Supreme Court Delivers Big Win for School Choice and Religious Liberty Advocates https://reason.com/2020/06/30/supreme-court-delivers-big-win-for-school-choice-and-religious-liberty-advocates/

Our Age of Superstition https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/woke-politics-superstition-symbols-irrational-fears/ This my friends, is what the era of social media and instantaneous, un-eraseable communication has wrought on America.

https://i.imgur.com/42fTE32.gifv

https://reason.com/2020/06/29/kneeling-in-the-church-of-social-justice/?itm_source=parsely-api Such rituals of subservience and self-mortification parallel devout Christianity in an especially graphic way, but other episodes tell the same story. Many conventional religious institutions are now rejecting actual Christianity where it conflicts with TWA teachings. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a chaplain was forced to resign after writing a note exploring the contradiction between roasting the police as racist and the Christian call for love of all souls. Unitarianism has been all but taken over in many places by modern antiracist theology, forcing the resignation of various ministers and other figures. The new faith also manifests itself in objections to what its adherents process as dissent. A friend wrote on Facebook that they agreed with Black Lives Matter, only to have another person—a white one, for the record—post this reply: "Wait a minute! You 'agree' with them? That implies you get to disagree with them! That's like saying you 'agree' with the law of gravity! You as a white person don't get to 'agree' OR 'disagree' when black people assert something! Saying you 'agree' with them is every bit as arrogant as disputing them! This isn't an intellectual exercise! This is their lives on the line!" This objection seems studiously hostile until we compare it to how a devout Christian might feel about someone opining that he "agrees" with Jesus' teachings, as if the custom were to think one's way through the liturgy in logical fashion and decide what parts of it makes sense, rather than to suspend logic and have faith. The religious analogies pile higher by the week. Third-Wave Antiracism even has (metaphorical) sacrificial victims. The New York Times' food columnist Alison Roman is on suspension for criticizing in passing Marie Kondo and Chrissy Teigen for going commercial. Her sin? Criticizing not one, but two, people "of color." (Kondo is Japanese, Teigen half white and half Thai.) Teigen has openly said that she does not think Roman deserves to be canceled for what she said, but no matter. At the Times, the TWA must have its way. A great many intelligent people clearly consider all of the glowering postures, verbal laceration, and dismissals to be somehow an advance over how social change worked in America in the past. The seismic civil rights victories of the 1960s came about through protest, no doubt. But absent in the annals of how we got from Selma to the election of Barack Obama is this focus on individual psychology as opposed to national social and political structures. Martin Luther King was under no impression that all white people were going to fully "love" all black people. He spent his time working for gradual change in the world as we know it via endless exchange and consultation with the powers that be, not agitating for a vague utopian conception of a society devoid of any racist sentiment. No matter what evidence people find of King's fundamental radicalism, radicalism in his day was not centered around this recreationally aggrieved performance art, much less obsessively seeking to excoriate and destroy people suspected of impure thoughts. The TWA adherent might object that today's strategy is a second step—that the battle of yore was against overt segregation and disenfranchisement, but today making an even more equal society requires this different approach. But why is all of this agitprop and joyous defenestration an advance over forging political change in the ways that have had such effect in the past? Those of us watching incongruously and needlessly acrid media posts and the yanking down of statues cannot help thinking the real motivator of the TWA posture is a simple joy in indignation and destruction, along with the comforts of group warmth. The white TWA adherent cherishes displaying virtue. The black TWA adherent has fallen for the Siren call of the noble victim complex, affording one the status of a Cassandra, a survivor, even the granter of absolution, as we see in some of the protest videos. TWA people, to be sure, claim that all of this is ultimately about changing society. But in practice, the performance and fury are the main meal while the mundane but urgent work of changing society seems distinctly underplayed. One treatise on white privilege after another gives this away, such as Őzlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo's Is Everyone Really Equal? After almost 200 pages of teaching the reader that being a good antiracist requires bowing down to any claims anyone not white makes about race, we assume that the final chapter might show how this counterintuitive ideology is supposed to change the actual world. Instead, that chapter simply repeats the minatory mantras from the previous chapters. If TWA were really a political program, it would focus much more readily on making change from the grassroots on up; the psychological cleansing would feel like a prelude cherished by a few but best gotten past as quickly as possible. The idea that political work must be preceded by a massive mental overhaul of the nation is not self-standingly obvious. It is a tragically fragile proposition that reveals TWA as in essence not politics but Sunday school. The TWA world might raise another objection, one that must be heeded. Without the fever pitch of these voices, and the dread they instill in any white person chilled at the possibility of being outed as a racist in today's society, Tina Fey would not have pulled a few episodes of 30 Rock out of streaming because they had blackface depictions, the Dixie Chicks would not have renamed themselves The Chicks, there would still be an awful lot of statues of Confederate racists standing, and Rhode Island would not be excising the word plantation from its full name. The TWA message asks whites to look inside themselves to examine the ways they contribute to racism. This is happening to an unprecedented degree. Yet we can be quite sure that the TWA position on these things, no matter how many and no matter how widespread, will be to dismiss them as mere optics, as if such things weren't what they seemed to be calling for in their furious policing of psychology. The new line will be that these changes didn't matter because they left "structures" of society in place. This bait and switch will not be a cynical ploy, but an inevitable outgrowth of the fact that TWA is a matter of ideology and attitude, not progress and pragmatism. Its liturgy requires that America always be a racist snakepit, redeemable only by a mysterious day when the U.S. "comes to terms with" racism. Just what those terms would be is never specified for a reason, which is that if there really were no racism the TWA adherents would lose their sense of purpose. (No, reparations won't do it. Look under the hood of the most prominent calls for reparations and you'll see that they say reparations would only be a "beginning.") In any case, to be sure, names and icons are just optics. More substantively, TWA has helped create some movement in America's conversation about the cops, a problem central to black Americans' sense of discomfort and dismissal in America. But there are two problems. One is that truly reforming 18,000 different police departments, as well as the byzantine laws that quietly detour and destroy so many lives, will be a long, hard job of the kind King and his comrades so diligently and patiently forged. TWA activity, so focused on smoking out racist imagery, seems ill-suited to participate meaningfully in actual on-the-ground toil of this kind. And second, we must ask: Is it necessary, for the cops to reform, that a food columnist be suspended for dissing a half-Thai model or that sincere Unitarian ministers lose their jobs? Because this is so very much a TWA moment and because its perspective has been creeping into the fabric of educated American society over several years, we are becoming desensitized to how ancillary to civic progress is this peculiar, furious, and fantastical indoctrination. We seek sociopolitical change, yet we find on the vanguards a contingent who have founded a new religion. They insist hotly that they "really are right," because racism is bad, isn't it? Indeed it is. But it is also bad for increasing numbers of Americans, out of fear for their social acceptance in wider society, pretend to subscribe to the semi-coherent tenets of an anti-empirical faith feigning higher wisdom with big words and manipulative phraseology. They see themselves as the heirs of bygone heroes who would actually have been sickened by them. Progressive Americans' task is not to learn charismatic but purposeless self-flagellational routines, but to fight injustices with sense and logic. Only TWA adherents think the two are the same. A new religion is right. And it is somewhat disturbing.

A SWAT Team Blew Up This Family's House While Chasing a Shoplifter. The Supreme Court Won't Hear the Case. https://reason.com/2020/06/29/swat-team-police-leo-lech-supreme-court-5th-amendment/ Yet another heinous example of the militarization of our nation's law enforcement edifice. Shameful.

Were COVID-19 Lockdowns Worth the Cost? https://reason.com/2020/06/29/were-covid-19-lockdowns-worth-the-cost/ I don't have to wonder about it. IMO the lockdown was not worth it.

IMHO both are equally intrusive.

So your hypothetical takes place in the state of Illinois? Ok. I would ignore such an order, depending on the situation at hand. If I'm walking down an empty public sidewalk in say, Greenfield Illinois, I will not be wearing a mask. However if my favorite watering hole has a "no masks, no service" sign on the door I may decide to wear one in order to give the proprietor my business.

No, I don't. That is your assumption, not mine friend. There are numerous individuals on this forum more intelligent than I am.

‘White Jesus’ Tried In The Court Of Black Lives Matter: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/white-jesus-tried-in-the-court-of-black-lives-matter/ The Christian Postidentifies King as a “retired pastor,” which is a pretty big stretch. In 2008, at the age of 29, Mr. King founded a church in Atlanta called “Courageous Church”—only to step down four years later, aged 33, because his congregation didn’t really like him. “I think in some ways I moved people too quickly for their comfort and it just didn’t work,” he explained. “Some people really loved the changes and transitions that I was proposing, but it didn’t work.” I guess so. In fairness, destroying statues of Jesus and the saints went out of vogue with Protestants a good four hundred years ago. I’m not questioning Mr. King’s faith, of course. Far be it from me to read another man’s soul! For all I know, he’s a devout Christian. But I think it’s fair to say that his animus towards White Jesus is more political than theological. .... Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I don’t see this wave of destructive violence lasting much longer. Iconoclasm just doesn’t sit well with Americans. That’s one advantage to living in a pluralist society: we’re forced to see the goodness and the beauty in faiths that we don’t ourselves believe in. Whether it’s a mob of SJWs tearing down a statue of Christopher Columbus in Boston or a band of Islamists desecrating the tomb of a Sufi saint in Libya, we don’t abide such violent, small-minded bigots. We lasted three months under the coronavirus lockdown before we got sick of it and went outside. I’d be surprised if this new wave of iconoclasm lasts even that long. Our republic was founded on the noble principle of not letting someone else tell you what to do—and, regardless of their religion, I firmly believe that most of countrymen will not tolerate these self-righteous, twenty-something busybodies. We don’t all believe in Heaven, but all true Americans share one common creed: “Leave me the Hell alone.” Interesting point by Mr. King. Should all these "European", aka white, depictions of Jesus Christ be removed from the public square?

It Was Obama All Along https://spectator.org/it-was-obama-all-along/ (Note: this probably means they listened to partial recordings of the Flynn–Kislyak conversations) Obama directs the investigation of Flynn to proceed. He doesn’t say, “Have your best people on it”; he says, “have the right people on it,” which means something entirely different: have politically reliable people investigate Flynn. Obama directed Yates and Comey to have people who could be relied on to pursue Flynn perform the investigation. The next relevant meeting we know about is the one that took place on January 23, 2017, after Trump’s inauguration and long after Comey told Obama that the Flynn–Kislyak conversations appeared to be legitimate. Bill Priestap, then the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, made the notes of that meeting either during or after it. The meeting was between Comey, then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and himself. Priestap’s notes recall conversations in which the three apparently decided to not warn Flynn of his constitutional rights or that there was a risk of Flynn being prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Priestap’s now-famous notes say, “What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired? … If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ + have them decide.” Comey, Priestap, and McCabe were following Obama’s orders and setting up the interview to entrap Flynn into lying or admitting a violation of the Logan Act, the 1807 law precluding American citizens who lack governmental authority from negotiating policy matters with representatives of foreign governments. Comey had already determined that the Flynn–Kislyak conversations appeared to be legitimate. There is absolutely no doubt about their legitimacy: Flynn, as incoming national security adviser to the already-elected Trump, would be highly derelict in his duty if he hadn’t had such conversations with Kislyak and a wide variety of foreign government representatives on any subject relevant to Trump’s concerns. But the investigation continued, the FBI interviewed Flynn on the record and, after the investigation was continued by special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of partisan Democratic prosecutors, Flynn pleaded guilty rather than have Mueller persecute Flynn’s son. Go back to the meeting with Obama, Biden, Yates, Comey, and Rice. This wasn’t an extraordinary event. It was a routine event for the president to be briefed on a counterintelligence investigation. What made it unique is — as Obama noted — these were unusual times. The Flynn investigation “Crossfire Razor” was nothing more than an offshoot from original “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into Trump’s campaign. We have, as yet, no proof that Obama was directly involved in and directed the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation. But think about the people who ran it: CIA Director John Brennan, Comey, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. There is zero chance that the three ran “Crossfire Hurricane” without Obama’s knowledge. And there is no reason to believe that he was more reluctant to issue them orders on how to conduct that investigation than he was to direct Comey and Yates to investigate Flynn and “put the right people” on it despite the obvious legitimacy of Flynn’s actions. For those who have forgotten, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s surveillance warrants against Carter Page — all four of them — were based on the fictitious “Steele dossier,” the compilation of opposition research materials paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Which brings us around to the January 6, 2017, declaration by the Director of National Intelligence that the entire U.S. intelligence community (IC) that the Russian interference in the 2016 election was intended to benefit candidate Trump. We know now — and the intelligence community knew then — that the Steele dossier was a product of Russian intelligence activities. Steele had based his series of memos on Russian sources. But the IC was determined to defeat Trump and then to disrupt his transition to the presidency. In short, the January 6 declaration was as false as the Steele dossier itself. It’s a great pity that you can’t impeach someone who is no longer in office, because Obama’s actions — clearly in violation of the law and of the constitutional rights of Flynn, Trump, Carter Page, and others — were entirely worthy of impeachment. During the Watergate investigation of President Richard Nixon’s actions, Sen. Howard Baker (R-Tenn.) famously asked, “What did the president know and when did he know it?” In the case of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the question is what did Obama do and when did he do it? So where do we go from here? One trusted source tells me that Susan Rice — she who took to the airwaves and lied about the Benghazi attack on five Sunday news shows and participated in the push to investigate Flynn — is high on Joe Biden’s list of possible vice-presidential running mates. Biden’s participation in the unjustified pursuit of Mike Flynn (of which he says he was aware, but doesn’t admit its illegitimacy) makes him unfit for the presidency. And if he chooses Susan Rice as his running mate and wins the election, we’ll be governed by the two of the worst people. It’s a kakistocracy in the making.