Muda69

DT certainly had more posts with actual content that you did, Gonzo. And I believe him when he says that counting the prior two iterations of the GID his post count was 10k+. I'm pretty sure my count was in the 14k range. Pity that the GID technical support team didn't put any priority on actually backing up the GID site data from time to time.

And negative press about your site was spread by a number of GID and pro-pp zealots in an attempt to smear you. I remember those days.

Thank you. Are moderators voting members of GID brain trust? Or only the five administrators, one of whom according that page has yet to login to the new GID?

Only $4? The cookie cartel is charging $5 around here.......................

Agreed. The late, great Tim Adams once said to me in a PM, and I paraphrase, "People with strong/contrary opinions, like you and DrivenT , help drive traffic to the GID and therefore valuable discussions."

I think that is rather obvious..........................

In the interest of full disclosure, who exactly are the "we" you are referring to? Who currently makes up the GID brain trust?

Elizabeth Warren's Wealth Tax Is a Stunt Policy That Other Countries Have Tried and Discarded: http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/01/warren-wealth-tax-unconstitutional-2020 If this horrible tax would ever become law, it would be an abject failure. I can see loads of household suddenly with "only" $47, $48, $49.5 million evaluations.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/01/690024261/welcoming-girls-of-all-ages-boy-scouts-of-america-is-now-scouts-bsa And I call baloney on that statement. Within 5 years scouting troops will effectively be co-ed, especially in rural areas where it is already a struggle to find enough adult leadership. I've heard of it already happening in Cub Scouts, where there are supposed to be separate boys & girls dens within the same pack. Interesting days ahead.

http://reason.com/blog/2019/02/01/amelie-wen-zhao-young-adult-blood-heir Of course, some on the progressive left balk at any attempt to blend different cultural settings and traditions, or tell new stories that are inspired by rituals or clothing belonging to an ethnic group of which the author is not a member. Some even complain if any of a book's characters are repugnant—even if the point is to shed light on those characters' odiousness. (Singal and Rosenfield both point to a previous social media outrage concerning the YA book The Black Witch, derided as racist because some of the evil characters did in fact do racist things.) It's Zhao's book, and she can decide not to publish it if she no longer wants to. This was to be the first volume in a trilogy for which the author received a $500,000 advance, so opting not to publish is going to cost her quite a lot of money. But given how off-base these criticisms were, it seems like a terrible shame to capitulate to them. Last year my colleague Eric Boehm argued that our society resembles Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Boehm pointed out that the famous science fiction novel is misremembered as a mere warning against government censorship. In fact, it's a treatise against the sort of society where everything that provokes anyone is deemed problematic. Bradbury wasn't worried that the government would start burning books out of nowhere; he worried that people would demand the bonfires. Censorship grow out of political correctness, weaponized by each aggrieved person against everyone else. "There is more than one way to burn a book, and the world is full of people running about with lit matches," Bradbury wrote. In our age of daily, context-free viral outrages, it's a prescient warning. Agreed. It's a shame that Ms. Zhao was browbeat/shamed into not publishing her creation. 'Tis the way the of the SJW's.

Yes, I can pay via a money order or cash.

Thank you for the explanation.

I knew you were, hence the unadulterated praise for your vast intellect.

Uggh. He wouldn't get my vote. The only sensible thing he put forth was getting the U.S. military out of Afghanistan.

You know, a GID admin like SR1 would have deleted some of these recent pictures and issued a warning to the one who posted it. I am not seeing that happening. Have the rules for content posted to the GID changed?

Which scene would you have chosen, if you could only one choose one?

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/01/25-best-movie-scenes?verso=true I've seen about 20 of the 25 movies on this list, and can't really argue against any of them. Great cinema.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/jackboots_in_the_morning_no_one_is_spared_from_this_american_nightmare The American Police State does not discriminate. Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now—whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again—rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you. We’ve been having this same debate about the perils of government overreach for the past 50-plus years, and still we don’t seem to learn, or if we learn, we learn too late. For too long now, the American people have allowed their personal prejudices and politics to cloud their judgment and render them incapable of seeing that the treatment being doled out by the government’s lethal enforcers has remained consistent, no matter the threat. All of the excessive, abusive tactics employed by the government today—warrantless surveillance, stop and frisk searches, SWAT team raids, roadside strip searches, asset forfeiture schemes, private prisons, indefinite detention, militarized police, etc.—will eventually be meted out on the general populace. At that point, when you find yourself in the government’s crosshairs, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white; it will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen; it will not matter whether you’re rich or poor; it will not matter whether you’re Republican or Democrat; and it certainly won’t matter who you voted for in the last presidential election. At that point—at the point you find yourself subjected to dehumanizing, demoralizing, thuggish behavior by government bureaucrats who are hyped up on the power of their badges and empowered to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—remember you were warned. Take Roger Stone, one of President Trump’s longtime supporters, for example. This is a guy accused of witness tampering, obstruction of justice and lying to Congress. As far as we know, this guy is not the kingpin of a violent mob or drug-laundering scheme. He’s been charged with a political crime. So what does the FBI do? They send 29 heavily armed agents in 17 vehicles to carry out a SWAT-style raid on Stone’s Florida home just before dawn on Jan. 25, 2019. As the Boston Herald reports: “After his arraignment on witness tampering, obstruction and lying to Congress, a rattled Stone was quoted as saying 29 agents ‘pounded on the door,’ pointed automatic weapons at him and ‘terrorized’ his wife and dogs. Stone was taken away in handcuffs, the sixth associate of President Trump to be indicted in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. All the charges have been related to either lying or tax evasion, with no evidence of so-called ‘collusion’ with Russia emerging to date.” Overkill? Sure. Yet another example of government overreach and brutality? Definitely. But here’s the thing: while Tucker Carlson and Chris Christie and other Trump apologists appear shocked that law enforcement personnel would stage a military assault against “an unarmed 66-year-old man who has been charged with a nonviolent crime,” this is nothing new. Indeed, this is blowback, one more vivid example of how the government’s short-sighted use of immoral, illegal and unconstitutional tactics become dangerous weapons turned against the American people. To be clear, this Stone raid is far from the first time a SWAT team has been employed in non-violent scenarios. Nationwide, SWAT teams routinely invade homes, break down doors, kill family pets (they always shoot the dogs first), damage furnishings, terrorize families, and wound or kill those unlucky enough to be present during a raid. .... SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely sensitive, dangerous situations. They were never meant to be used for routine police work such as serving a warrant. Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams—which first appeared on the scene in California in the 1960s—have now become intrinsic parts of federal and local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial federal assistance and the Pentagon’s 1033 military surplus recycling program, which allows the transfer of military equipment, weapons and training to local police for free or at sharp discounts. ... There are few communities without a SWAT team today. In 1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT team-style raids in the US. Incredibly, that number has since grown to more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year. Where this becomes a problem of life and death for Americans is when these militarized SWAT teams are assigned to carry out routine law enforcement tasks. No longer reserved exclusively for deadly situations, SWAT teams are now increasingly being deployed for relatively routine police matters such as serving a search warrant, with some SWAT teams being sent out as much as five times a day. ... What we are witnessing is an inversion of the police-civilian relationship. Rather than compelling police officers to remain within constitutional bounds as servants of the people, ordinary Americans are being placed at the mercy of militarized police units. This is what happens when paramilitary forces are used to conduct ordinary policing operations, such as executing warrants on nonviolent defendants. Unfortunately, general incompetence, collateral damage (fatalities, property damage, etc.) and botched raids tend to go hand in hand with an overuse of paramilitary forces. In some cases, officers misread the address on the warrant. In others, they simply barge into the wrong house or even the wrong building. In another subset of cases (such as the Department of Education raid on Anthony Wright’s home), police conduct a search of a building where the suspect no longer resides. If you’re wondering why the Education Department needs a SWAT team, you’re not alone. Among those federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions are the State Department, Department of Education, Department of Energy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service, to name just a few. In fact, it says something about our reliance on the military that federal agencies having nothing whatsoever to do with national defense now see the need for their own paramilitary units. SWAT teams have even on occasion conducted multiple, sequential raids on wrong addresses or executed search warrants despite the fact that the suspect is already in police custody. Police have also raided homes on the basis of mistaking the presence or scent of legal substances for drugs. Incredibly, these substances have included tomatoes, sunflowers, fish, elderberry bushes, kenaf plants, hibiscus, and ragweed. As you can see, all too often, botched SWAT team raids have resulted in one tragedy after another for the residents with little consequences for law enforcement. Unfortunately, judges tend to afford extreme levels of deference to police officers who have mistakenly killed innocent civilians but do not afford similar leniency to civilians who have injured police officers in acts of self-defense. Even homeowners who mistake officers for robbers can be sentenced for assault or murder if they take defensive actions resulting in harm to police. And as journalist Radley Balko shows in his in-depth study of police militarization, the shock-and-awe tactics utilized by many SWAT teams only increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt. ... If ever there were a time to de-militarize and de-weaponize local police forces, it’s now. While we are now grappling with a power-hungry police state at the federal level, the militarization of domestic American law enforcement is largely the result of the militarization of local police forces, which are increasingly militaristic in their uniforms, weaponry, language, training, and tactics and have come to rely on SWAT teams in matters that once could have been satisfactorily performed by traditional civilian officers. Yet American police forces were never supposed to be a branch of the military, nor were they meant to be private security forces for the reigning political faction. Instead, they were intended to be an aggregation of countless local police units, composed of citizens like you and me that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every American community. As a result of the increasing militarization of the police in recent years, however, the police now not only look like the military—with their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of lethal weapons—but they function like them, as well. Thus, no more do we have a civilian force of peace officers entrusted with serving and protecting the American people. Instead, today’s militarized law enforcement officials have shifted their allegiance from the citizenry to the state, acting preemptively to ward off any possible challenges to the government’s power, unrestrained by the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. As journalist Herman Schwartz observed, “The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official.” Heavily armed police officers, the end product of the government—federal, local and state—and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a “standing” or permanent army, composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband. Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens. This phenomenon we are experiencing with the police is what philosopher Abraham Kaplan referred to as the law of the instrument, which essentially says that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the scenario that has been playing out in recent years, we the citizenry have become the nails to be hammered by the government’s henchmen, a.k.a. its guns for hire, a.k.a. its standing army, a.k.a. the nation’s law enforcement agencies. The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone.” A study by a political scientist at Princeton University concludes that militarizing police and SWAT teams “provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction.” The study, the first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of militarized force, reveals that “police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the number of officers assaulted or killed.” In other words, warrior cops aren’t making us or themselves any safer. Indeed, as I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it is increasingly evident that militarized police armed with weapons of war who are empowered to carry out pre-dawn raids on our homes, shoot our pets, and terrorize our families have not made America any safer or freer. The sticking point is not whether Americans must see eye-to-eye on the pressing issues of the day, but whether we can agree that no one should be treated in such a fashion by their own government. The march of the police state moves on. And this use of SWAT teams for mundane tasks like serving warrants for an alleged nonviolent crime is just a way for the state to justify their existence.

Ahh. I understand.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/moral-case-for-capitalism-fight-progressive-premises/ It is a scary time for America. The progressives must not be allowed to implement their socialist agenda upon the American populace.

Polar vortex victims include University of Iowa student, ex-city councilman, police officer and wife: https://www.foxnews.com/us/polar-vortex-victims-include-university-of-iowa-student-ex-city-councilman-police-officer-and-wife Not sure this one has anything to do with the Polar Vortex; this is pretty much a standard occurrence in Detroit and Wayne County. And Fox News forgot to mention the dead zebra: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/local/lafayette/2019/01/30/zebra-dies-freak-accident-near-delphi/2723838002/

I believe I did. Too bad we don't have the "old GID" to search. Corporate welfare is just a mechanism to fleece the taxpayers in order to enrich the corporations.