Althouse: At the Sunrise Café...

December 17, 2020

At the Sunrise Café...

...you can talk about whatever you like.

280 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 280 of 280

steve uhr said...: Bruce. The lying was to the FBI. It wasn’t under oath (my mistake) but it is a crime to make a false statement to an FBI agent and people are regularly prosecuted for that crime.

FBI didn’t know whether Flynn had other conversations (including emails, in-person meetings, etc) with Russian officials that were not recorded.

Can you at least agree that his knowing actions made hm susceptible to blackmail by the Russians since they hey knew he lied? Is that how an NSA should comport himself?; 12/18/20, 8:52 AM
Birkel said...: steve uhr,
The 1.4% of cases LA and NYC can cure for bars and restaurants (while 55% occur at home) is why your party wants to bankrupt small businesses and impoverish millions of your countrymen.

All to stop (hahahaha!) a virus that hasn't caused an outsized number of deaths in 15 days back in March.
Until December 2021.

FU, WAR.; 12/18/20, 8:58 AM
Michael K said...: Steve is doubling down on lies this morning. First, California has half the cases of SARS-2 in the country and has the most onerous rules about masks, shutdowns and locking people in their homes.

Second, as Bruce explained, Flynn DID NOT lie to anyone. I know Goebbels' rules require repeating the lie over and over but why do you persist?

You even pretend you are a lawyer and lawyers should know better.; 12/18/20, 8:59 AM
Birkel said...: Qwinn,
Floridians get more sunshine and therefore have more naturally occurring Vitamin D.
My guess is that explains the vast majority of the differences in those stats, after factoring our Cuomo's murder of thousands of grandmas and grandpas.

What say you?; 12/18/20, 9:00 AM
Birkel said...: No, steve uhr.
Nobody is going to agree with that bull shit except Leftist Collectivists already on your team.; 12/18/20, 9:01 AM
Qwinn said...: Birkel: CA has plenty of sunshine too, and lockdowns and masks, and is also doing worse than FL. So it's not an *implausible* suggestion, but, no.; 12/18/20, 9:05 AM
steve uhr said...: Flynn admitted he lied. Under oath. Twice. But why should anyone believe him?; 12/18/20, 9:05 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Qwinn:

Just pretend that's true (it is, but I get that admitting that would reduce your sneering options). Would that suffice as a causus belli for you?

Absolutely not. That would be insane. First, numerous countries try to interfere in our elections, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE. Second, the US interferes in other countries’ elections on a massive scale to say nothing of the fact that it covertly overthrows governments and financially and politically supports authoritarian governments to insure the suppression of democratic forces.; 12/18/20, 9:09 AM
Qwinn said...: Because he was threatened that it was either do that or they'd file bogus prosecution of his son, Steve.

But you know that, Herr Goebbels.; 12/18/20, 9:10 AM
Qwinn said...: Farmer, gotcha. So if Democrats and China (among others) successfully conspire via fraud to put a corrupt puppet wholly and completely compromised by China in the Presidency of the US, well, that's just normal operating procedures and nothing to be concerned about or respond to.

Never mind that all previous instances of voter fraud were limited in what they could actually do without mail in ballots... justified by a virus spread to the world... by China.

Orwell would have deemed you objectively on the other side.; 12/18/20, 9:15 AM
steve uhr said...: He lied to the FBI before there was any discussion about his son. You know that of course.

Stop projecting. You’re the one who wants to round up and execute your political enemies. Do you deny this?; 12/18/20, 9:16 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Maybe a bit more explanation is in order. The court system, and in particular the prosecution side operates fairly smoothly on little white lies. Somewhere >95% of all criminal cases, esp at the felony level, across the country, are settled through plea deals. Governments cannot afford the resources to actually prosecute more than a couple percent of their caseload. Most often, the plea is to a charge that plausibly could have been committed. Often it is to a lesser included offense, such as manslaughter, or even assault, for murder, etc. The Mueller prosecutors couldn’t do that though because the first two charges they were using (Logan Act and FARA) would have been an admission that the prosecution of Flynn was purely political. That left §1001 lying to a government official (which, BTW, McCabe, Strzok, and Pientka presumably committed by lying to Flynn), which really doesn’t have a decent lesser included charge that they could use. They could never prove §1001 lying, of course, since they were the ones lying, not Flynn.

But plea deals typically involve other white lies all around. One big one here is that there were no side deals, that rights had been willingly waived, etc. Except that there are inevitably side deals. Normally, they are innocent - that a bunch of major charges are dropped, in trade for an admission of guilt for a lesser charge, or at least a fewer number of charges. But there are times, like this, where the prosecutors have to go further afield in order to coerce the defendant into a plea deal. They really had nothing against Flynn, and would have been laughed out of court, if they had proceeded to trial. The Logan Act had ever, in over two centuries been successfully used in a prosecution, and was probably unconstitutional. FARA cases are almost always settled with civil fines, and esp in cases like Flynn’s, where he was operating upon advice of counsel, which meant that he probably lacked the required scienter for criminal culpability. All they had to use to get him to agree to their plea deal was the threat of charging his son too with a criminal FARA violation, and a promise of leniency, of no jail time (which they abrogated, violating the plea agreement). It was the threat of the Mueller prosecutors, with their unlimited budget bankrupting his son, that got Flynn to agree to the plea deal. And everyone, including the prosecutors, signed the plea agreement that claimed there had been no side deals, when everyone, maybe even Judge Sullivan, at the time, knew to have been the sort of white lies that courts almost uniformly routinely accept.

Except here, with the DOJ moving for dismissal of the charge, based on gross prosecutorial misconduct. All of a sudden, the white lie that routinely greases the wheels of justice was being used as a justification for not not dismissing the very highly political case.; 12/18/20, 9:18 AM
Big Mike said...: Judge Sullivan’s personal animus forced Trump to pardon an innocent man. The main effect will be to make a legal malpractice claim against the lawyers who persuaded him to accept the plea bargain go from very hard to totally infeasible. I assume Covington and Burling will find a way to reward Sullivan later, very quietly. That’s how DC works.; 12/18/20, 9:20 AM
Birkel said...: Qwinn:
California probably has a disproportionate number of Leftist Karens and a more radical set of state/local governments that would restrict its people more. Plus a lot of California is not as sunny as Florida. There are a lot of Central Valley and NorCal residents.

But Florida is much older so that weighs on your side.

I am sure encouraging people to participate in normal life activities improves health outcomes. So Florida has that as a huge advantage.; 12/18/20, 9:21 AM
Birkel said...: Did Flynn lie to the FBI before Clinesmith fabricated the 302s with Strzok?
Or was it only after the lawyers and the FBI agents fabricated evidence?; 12/18/20, 9:23 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Big Mike:

You are looking for some formal alliance where diplomats and leadership get together based on common interests and/or a common enemy and sign some documents. It wouldn't be anything like that.

No, I am not looking for that, since it clearly doesn’t exist.

Learn to think outside the box, the way Trump and Flynn do. The countries and NGOs listed by Flynn with share information and provide financing or shock troops when convenient, or not, if inconvenient. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Even such an informal relationship does not exist. There is nothing that can be reasonably described as an alliance between those various countries and organizations. Iran has been fighting against Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. Neither Cuba, nor North Korea, nor Venezuela are involved in a “global war” against the US. Flynn has merely rounded up various adversarial countries and organizations and claimed that they form an “enemy alliance” in a “global war.” It’s another iteration of the “axis of evil.”

Is there a point where you admit you are not in the same league as Michael Flynn?

In terms of warmongering foolishness, I’m happily not in Flynn’s league.; 12/18/20, 9:33 AM
Qwinn said...: Note that Steve uhr's reply implicitly acknowledges that prosecutors threatened to go after Flynn's son on bogus charges He just disputes that the timing of that outrage affected something else. (And FTR I don't believe his order of events is true).

But threatening family members for political reasons? That by itself is perfectly okay with steve.

Yes, Steve, I do fondly look forward to fair trials and executions of you and your lot for your overt treason. But unlike your side, we won't go after your innocent family members too.; 12/18/20, 9:38 AM
Birkel said...: From a tweet:
Sen. Dick Durbin says on @CNN the alleged Russian hack is "virtually a declaration of war."

Perhaps the warmongers are the UniParty who know they can loot the national treasury without oversight in the tumult of military engagements. That has been my working theory for years. Biden's brother builds housing after the Army destroys the housing all to profit the VP. The CIA has off-the-books financing never audited.

Flynn was targeted because he could and would reveal all that shady shit. And now Smug calls Flynn a warmonger. Meanwhile Trump has reduced foreign engagement and hired Flynn to help Trump's efforts to reduce America's foreign engagements.

It's hard to appreciate how delicious I think all that is.; 12/18/20, 9:45 AM
steve uhr said...: Maybe you should look up the definition of treason. It’s in the constitution. More projection on your part. Have I levied war against the us? Have I given aid and comfort to the enemies of the us? You get nuttier every day.; 12/18/20, 9:46 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Qwinn:

well, that's just normal operating procedures and nothing to be concerned about or respond to.

Your question was if it would constitute a casus belli. You want to go to war with a nuclear-armed state?

This is why it’s useless talking to conspiracy mongers. You can’t reason people out of their faith.

Orwell would have deemed you objectively on the other side.

And I deem you objectively a moron.; 12/18/20, 9:48 AM
Qwinn said...: Note that Steve still refrains from condemning targeting innocent family members of his political opponents for bogus prosecution.; 12/18/20, 9:49 AM
Qwinn said...: Farmer deems me objectively a moron for thinking we have reason to go to a war with a nuclear armed state.

He'd rather we have a President who could be relied on to refuse to return fire from a nuclear first strike by that same state.

Cause Farmer is smart, you see, not like we morons.; 12/18/20, 9:53 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Bruce. The lying was to the FBI. It wasn’t under oath (my mistake) but it is a crime to make a false statement to an FBI agent and people are regularly prosecuted for that crime.

“FBI didn’t know whether Flynn had other conversations (including emails, in-person meetings, etc) with Russian officials that were not recorded.

“Can you at least agree that his knowing actions made hm susceptible to blackmail by the Russians since they hey knew he lied? Is that how an NSA should comport himself?”

No, because all of your other claims are false, and the prosecutors knew that at the time. Probably not your fault - we still see that as the official narrative on the left. That is where the FD 302s from the §1001 perjury trap meeting orchestrated and setup by DD McCabe (violating §1001 himself by lying to Flynn setting up the meeting) come in.

Talk to any current or former FBI agent, and they will tell you that 302s are the forms that they routinely, often several times a day, fill out after meeting with people outside their agency (even Dir Comey meeting with POTUS). Their purpose is to memorialize their recent memories of the conversations. They are often admissible as evidence under exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. They have to be filled out and filed promptly, in order to stay within those Hearsay exceptions. Preferably within the day, but at the latest, I believe, within 3 days. The junior agent, Pientka, who had attended the Flynn interview (with the senior agent, Strzok, asking most of the questions) apparently filed the original 302s later that day, in the FBI’s Sentinel 302 management system, which is supposed to record every change made to every change made by any one to any 302 filed. The problem is that neither Flynn’s defense, nor the court, have ever seen Pientka’s original 302s. They have apparently disappeared, without a trace from the FBI’s 302 change management system, something that is supposedly impossible. It would require extremely high authority to effect the disappearance, without a trace, which likely means either D Comey or more likely DD McCabe. The 302s were then modified on several occasions over the next six weeks, and maybe year or so, and these later 302s are what were provided the court and the defense. The six week modifications were apparently done by Strzok (small no no) at the direction, and approval, by DD McCabe (major violation of FBI policy).

Why is that important? Because the original 302s essentially said that they found Flynn credible. That was the big thing removed by the later modifications. And the supposed lying by Flynn was that he claimed not to remember specifics about the call to the Russian Ambassador. The original 302s apparently found that credible. That was removed. And the Mueller prosecutors prosecuted anyway knowing that was the case. Knowing that the original 302s that had exonerated Flynn had been deleted, and replaced weeks and months later by 302s that incriminated him.; 12/18/20, 9:53 AM
Birkel said...: steve uhr,
Like the abusive husband who would quit beating his wife if only she did everything f just right, please tell us how the United States should change to meet your standards.

Then tell us you do not support the enemies of the United States.
That's my favorite fairy tale.; 12/18/20, 9:58 AM
steve uhr said...: I don't know if Flynn's son was innocent and neither do you. He worked at his dad's consulting firm. As part of the deal with Flynn, the prosecution agreed not to charge his son. If he had not agreed to the deal, there would have been no charges filed against his son unless the evidence was sufficient for a jury to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how it works. You don't just invent a charge and then have a "fair" trial. Except on Quinn's planet.; 12/18/20, 10:00 AM
iowan2 said...: “Bruce. The lying was to the FBI. It wasn’t under oath (my mistake) but it is a crime to make a false statement to an FBI agent and people are regularly prosecuted for that crime.

What a lie! You really should learn not to form your opinions using lefty talking points. They are called talking points, and not facts, for a reason. In order to prosecute lying to law enforcement, there needs to be an underling crime being investigated. Flynn was never charged with any crime was he?; 12/18/20, 10:04 AM
J. Farmer said...: Farmer deems me objectively a moron for thinking we have reason to go to a war with a nuclear armed state.

That does indeed make you a fucking idiot.

He'd rather we have a President who could be relied on to refuse to return fire from a nuclear first strike by that same state.

Biden Derangement Syndrome

Cause Farmer is smart, you see, not like we morons.

We? I was only talking about your stupidity.; 12/18/20, 10:07 AM
Qwinn said...: So the Pentagon just halted defense briefings for the Biden transition team.

I wonder why they would do that.; 12/18/20, 10:07 AM
Birkel said...: steve uhr,
The name you are looking for is Clinesmith.; 12/18/20, 10:09 AM
Qwinn said...: Biden Derangement Syndrome

The context of the discussion was under the assumption that, in fact, Biden was installed via voter fraud with the cooperation and aid of the Chinese Communist Party. You think in that circumstance that Biden could be counted on to effectively resist any Chinese aggression?

Your brilliance continues to amaze me.; 12/18/20, 10:10 AM
Robert Cook said...: "https://m.theepochtimes.com/china-engaged-in-mass-surveillance-on-american-mobile-phones-report-finds_3622636.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-17-5

"China spying on Americans.

"The Leftist Collectivists approve, of course."

What information do you have to suggest "leftist collectivists" approve? Who are these "leftist collectivists?"

Moreover, why would you express concern about China spying on Americans when you do not seem overly concerned about America spying on Americans? Snowden is languishing in Russian exile for warning us of this nearly a decade ago.; 12/18/20, 10:12 AM
Rusty said...: steve uhr said...
"I don't know if Flynn's son was innocent and neither do you. He worked at his dad's consulting firm. As part of the deal with Flynn, the prosecution agreed not to charge his son. If he had not agreed to the deal, there would have been no charges filed against his son unless the evidence was sufficient for a jury to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how it works. You don't just invent a charge and then have a "fair" trial. Except on Quinn's planet."
We're all friends here, right? Just a friendly conversation among friends, right? What would you admit to, to save your son from a false investigation?
Asking for other scum.; 12/18/20, 10:15 AM
Rusty said...: "He lied to the FBI before there was any discussion about his son."
No he didn't. The RFBI had to go back and edit it's report to make it appear that he lied.
And I'm considered scum.; 12/18/20, 10:17 AM
Robert Cook said...: "The context of the discussion was under the assumption that, in fact, Biden was installed via voter fraud with the cooperation and aid of the Chinese Communist Party. You think in that circumstance that Biden could be counted on to effectively resist any Chinese aggression?"

A lunatic context, to say the least.; 12/18/20, 10:17 AM
Birkel said...: Robert Cook,
I will stipulate, arguendo, that you believe their are No True Communists.
Please move onto your second beat argument.; 12/18/20, 10:18 AM
J. Farmer said...: You think in that circumstance that Biden could be counted on to effectively resist any Chinese aggression?

“any Chinese aggression”’ = nuclear first strike

Your brilliance continues to amaze me.

As does your utter idiocy. In any event, I’ll leave you to your windmills.; 12/18/20, 10:19 AM
Birkel said...: Is the second best argument that the Chinese would not try to place a pro-China, previously bribed presidential candidate in the White House?

Cue the Billy Madison clip.; 12/18/20, 10:19 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I will stipulate, arguendo, that you believe their are No True Communists."

So...you cannot answer either of my questions. As expected.; 12/18/20, 10:25 AM
Birkel said...: I cannot be bothered to waste my time on you infantile garbage thinking.
You'll find this does not make you special.; 12/18/20, 10:32 AM
Qwinn said...: A lunatic context believed by 46% of the population, as opposed to 45% that don't.

We 46% have been called crazies and lunatics by you lot for decades. It's cute you think we give a fuck anymore. The only thing it does anymore is remove any motive for us to show you any mercy whatsoever when the reckoning comes.; 12/18/20, 10:36 AM
Birkel said...: To be fair, there is only one person on these boards who is not largely in alignment with my own views with whom I would consider wasting time.

That person is Smug. My criticism of Smug is that his style is so off-putting as to foreclose any meaningful conversation. It limits his effectiveness and deteriorates any will I might have to engage. It's the internet and it's not terribly interesting if I have to wade through a bunch of Smug to get to the heart of a disagreement.

But at least I suspect he is honest. And that's not nothing.

The Leftist Collectivists on these boards are not ho eat. Their disagreements are not in good faith. They lie because that is the style in which they are practiced and comfortable.

All I will ever do with Robert Cook, et al, is mock them in their stupidity. They have nothing to teach because better people than them have already made their arguments in more sophisticated ways. They are but hollow shells of lies and half-truths I have heard before. They are gutless, spineless, degraded, and bad faith partisans with nary a useful function online.

So GFY, Robert Cook. You're boring and that's the worst thing of all, online.; 12/18/20, 10:48 AM
Big Mike said...: A couple notes regarding Flynn:

1) There is a difference between a confession and a coerced confession. People do not believe the latter, for good reason. It is a mark against steve uhr that he, like the ignorant and mendacious Judge Sullivan, chooses to believe that Flynn’s confession was not coerced. He blew it on the Covington Kids. He is blowing it now. He just blows.

2) One should be aware that Andrew McCabe had a personal animosity towards Michael Flynn. A talented intelligence expert named Robyn Lee Gritz filed a sex discrimination suit against McCabe, and Flynn wrote a letter supporting her. Gritz was run out of the government, and when FBI Deputy Director McCabe had a chance to get payback, he was able to order agents to ignore their own 302s and prosecute Flynn despite his clear innocence.; 12/18/20, 11:02 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “ In order to prosecute lying to law enforcement, there needs to be an underling crime being investigated. Flynn was never charged with any crime was he?”

The supposed crime was violation of the Logan Act (thank you, superlawyer Joe Biden for apparently being the one to suggest it). The problem there is first that the Logan Act is unenforceable, and almost assuredly unconstitutional. Which is why it hasn’t been tested in two centuries. Everyone knows that it is a dead letter. But it is still on the books, so they could hang their hat there. Except that the misstatement had to be legally material, and an unconstitutional law, where they could not hope for a conviction, is hardly the basis for a material misstatement. But worse, the Logan Act only applies to non government employees conducting foreign relations (like Lurch Kerry did with Iran). A Presidential transition is an official government function, receiving federal government funding, and Flynn was acting within his official job function as incoming NSA. The Logan Act didn’t apply to him, at the time that he had that conversation with the Russian Ambassador.

Quick reminder of what was going on at the time. The outgoing Obama Administration had tried to create a diplomatic problem with the Russians, as a present for the incoming Trump Administration. They intentionally overreacted and threw some Russians out of the country. Except that the Russians did not overreact, as the Obama people had planned and expected. Why not? Someone said “Oh, look! We have the transcripts of a call between incoming NSA and the Russian ambassador!”never reading them carefully, nor questioning the legality of those (very illegal) transcripts. It went directly to the White House, with both Obama and Biden present. And this was where Biden suggested that Flynn had violated the Logan Act.

They accused Flynn of having made a deal with the Russians (legal, since it was within Flynn’s job description). As I remember it, they alleged the quid pro quo deal after Trump’s inauguration. Pence questioned Flynn, who denied it. Or at least remembering it. Since this was leaked, Trump had to fire Flynn. Except that Flynn never offered the Russians the claimed quid pro quo. Instead, he had told the ambassador that he knew that the Russians had to react to the provocation, but to keep in mind that overreacting to something that the Obama Administration had done to them might not be the best way to get along with the incoming Trump Administration. And, of course, it worked. There never was a quid pro quo, just a friendly suggestion, that didn’t really even suggest retaliation on our part, if the Russians didn’t go along. As noted, the Obama WH, top of the FBI and DOJ, and the Mueller prosecutors had the transcripts of the call. Flynn, Trump, and Pence did not. A couple years later, when they did finally see them, Trump knew that Flynn had not lied to Pence, and publicly forgave him.; 12/18/20, 11:27 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “I don't know if Flynn's son was innocent and neither do you. He worked at his dad's consulting firm. As part of the deal with Flynn, the prosecution agreed not to charge his son. If he had not agreed to the deal, there would have been no charges filed against his son unless the evidence was sufficient for a jury to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how it works. You don't just invent a charge and then have a "fair" trial. Except on Quinn's planet.”

That was very Pollyannaish. Except that prosecutions by highly partisan prosecutors in a special counsel investigations with unlimited budgets don’t have those constraints. His father was charged, with the prosecutors having substantial knowledge that all of the charges against him were rubbish. FARA violations are almost always (roughly 99%) settled for a civil fine. But maybe more importantly, the Flynn’s were operating upon advice of counsel, which meant that they very likely did not have the required specific intent required for a criminal FARA convictions.; 12/18/20, 11:38 AM
Qwinn said...: “I don't know if Flynn's son was innocent and neither do you."

Here's a translation of every post steve uhr has ever made:

"All of my political opponents must be assumed to be at least potentially guilty and denied any benefit of any doubt or any presumption of innocence, even in the absence of even a shred of evidence of criminality, even after it is proven that false evidence was fabricated against them."

"All of my political allies must be assumed to be completely innocent and granted every benefit of every doubt, even in the presence of mountains of evidence of criminality and/or criminal intent."; 12/18/20, 12:19 PM
Mark said...: Bruce, I give your election claims the same credence the blog hostess does.

But if you want to try to put words in my mouth claiming otherwise, I have better things to do with my time.; 12/18/20, 12:19 PM
Robert Cook said...: "So GFY, Robert Cook."

"Good for you, Robert Cook?" Really? I'm touched. A little. And it feels weird. Don't do that again.; 12/18/20, 12:22 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Yes, Flynn lied to protect his kid.

The Democrats (Obama specifically) did him wrong.; 12/18/20, 12:24 PM
Qwinn said...: Bruce, I give your election claims the same credence the blog hostess does.

Congratulations, Professor! Now that most of the "authorities" that have been appealed to so far have been established as being complicit, you get to be the newest subject of the endless appeals to authority in substitution of any argument.; 12/18/20, 12:24 PM
Robert Cook said...: "We 46% have been called crazies and lunatics by you lot for decades."

Well...where there's smoke, there is, ahem, fire.

"It's cute you think we give a fuck anymore. The only thing it does anymore is remove any motive for us to show you any mercy whatsoever when the reckoning comes."

Aw, don't lie. In the infinitesimally unlikely event a "reckoning" ever occurs, you crazies and lunatics will (and always were intending to) try to go full ISIS on everyone else. That's who you guys are.; 12/18/20, 12:30 PM
Birkel said...: Mark,
Nobody believes your most recent lie.; 12/18/20, 12:32 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...infinitesimally unlikely....

Infinitesimally likely, that is.; 12/18/20, 12:34 PM
Birkel said...: Robert Cook, summarized:
1. You will never be violent.
2. Despite #1 you are just like ISIS.
3. Therefore it is ok to kill you.

GFY.; 12/18/20, 12:34 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Bruce, I give your election claims the same credence the blog hostess does. “

“But if you want to try to put words in my mouth claiming otherwise, I have better things to do with my time.”

And we will put your denials, arguments through authority, etc of the election fraud similar treatment.; 12/18/20, 12:38 PM
Yancey Ward said...: On masks:

If masks work, why haven't they worked? I live in Tennessee where there is no mask mandate at the state level, and yet 100% of the people in the supermarket I shop at every single week are masked- no exceptions at all that I have seen in 6 months now- they don't wear them properly, or those made with proper materials to stop a virus, but they do have them on their fucking faces. I can't imagine there is less mask use in the states with mandates. The only indoor space I have seen with maskless people here is the Gold's Gym I go to, but they haven't had a single case traced back to the place in the 6 months since it reopened in early May.; 12/18/20, 12:43 PM
Qwinn said...: WE are just like ISIS. Of course.

Black Lives Matter Activist Honored by Boston Red Sox Charged With Punching an 80-Year Old Woman in the Face at Trump Rally.; 12/18/20, 12:53 PM
Robert Cook said...: Birkel, your well wishes of "Good For You" notwithstanding, you prove again that, among other things, you don't know how to read for comprehension.; 12/18/20, 1:02 PM
Birkel said...: Robert Cook,
I apologize for typing the quiet part out loud.; 12/18/20, 1:05 PM
Qwinn said...: 9 months of looting and arson.

Tyrannical and senseless lockdowns.

Massive election theft.

Mountains of evidence of foreign influence and corruption on the part of the "winning" candidate.

And if we fight back against any of this... except, of course, we won't... we are just like ISIS.

Got it.; 12/18/20, 1:10 PM
Qwinn said...: Oh, did I forget to mention the tyrannical censorship and manipulation of information that the population is allowed to see?

Yeah, that too. Not at all like ISIS. Only resisting it is just like ISIS.; 12/18/20, 1:13 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I apologize for typing the quiet part out loud."

Well, now you just show you cannot write for comprehension, either.; 12/18/20, 1:16 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Birkel:

But at least I suspect he is honest. And that's not nothing.

I appreciate the acknowledgment. Thank you. And your criticisms are duly noted.; 12/18/20, 1:26 PM
Birkel said...: You probably wouldn't personally march me into the gas chambers, Robert Cook.
But you do support the fascists.

I know you want to pretend you don't but that is also a lie.
I pity your corrupt soul.; 12/18/20, 1:27 PM
Jim at said...: The people who refuse to wear masks are the same people who blame the democrats shutting down bars and restaurants when the reason they are shut down is because people aren’t wearing masks. Amazing

I cannot believe this level of stupidity. Jay Inslee - a Democrat, and governor of Washington state - has banned all indoor dining throughout the state.

Banned, asshole. Do you understand the word 'banned?'; 12/18/20, 1:34 PM
Qwinn said...: Same with Pennsylvania. My wife and I couldn't go out to dinner for our anniversary because of Governor Wolfenstein's edict. And I weep for all of the small businesses owners being destroyed to advance the leftist agenda.

Tar, feathers, lampposts.; 12/18/20, 1:47 PM
FullMoon said...: In Santa Clara County California, we been masked up, spread out and shut down. Restrictions lifted occasionally and briefly, so govt can blame uptick on loosening of restrictions.

Hospitalizations in county at peak now, in spite of, or due to draconian measures.

Literally got an emergency message one minute ago that all travel, except essential, is banned.; 12/18/20, 2:05 PM
Birkel said...: FullMoon:
Everybody in the area should go wherever the fuck they want and hope to get arrested.
And you should do it every day forever or until your freedom is recognized by the would-be tyrants.

Civil disobedience by the broad middle class is required if the middle class wants to be free.; 12/18/20, 2:25 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Interesting:

“A spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court disputed a report that claimed Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts shouted at the eight other justices in a room in the high court, urging them not to the Texas election lawsuit against four other key states.”

“As guidance, the court “has been conducting its conferences remotely by phone since March when the building closed due to the pandemic,” a Supreme Court spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email on Friday in response to a question about the claim.”
...; 12/18/20, 3:02 PM
I'm Not Sure said...: "a Supreme Court spokesperson told The Epoch Times"

An email from a government spokesperson? Doesn't get more legit than that.; 12/18/20, 3:26 PM
Readering said...: Why is USA worst at deaths from covid and guns?; 12/18/20, 4:18 PM
Birkel said...: Readering,
When you make up false things and ask for an answer it will always be "Becaise Readering is a lying sack of shit."; 12/18/20, 4:54 PM
readering said...: Swoons; 12/18/20, 4:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Oh man, this thread goes through the entirety of the world! It's like trying to get a drink from a firehose.

Here's what I've boiled it down to: I like John Henry, and when I save up enough money, I'm going to take Michael K to lunch.

As an aside, I don't wear a mask, and ain't taking the flu shot.; 12/18/20, 6:11 PM
Readering said...: Then take Michael K soon.; 12/18/20, 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't wear a mask AND I don't blame the Democrats for shutting down bars. This cold-virus mania was ramped up to punish Democratical non-believers. It's an Inquisition kind of thing. These things happen from time to time. God still exists whether or not Catholics exceed their portfolio, so to speak.

BTW..I don't make a 'thing' about not wearing a mask. I've never been accosted. I see a weariness and submission in the eyes of those that wear the mask. I get that. Some folks come up and ask, when can we stop wearing these masks?

Imagine that...a mask wearer asking me, a not mask-wearer. When can we stop wearing the masks? My guess is never. I...don't wear a mask. You do. When can you stop wearing a mask? When you realize the prison has no walls, and you can just...walk out.; 12/18/20, 6:50 PM
Birkel said...: I wish for Readering what shim is wishing for Michael K.; 12/18/20, 6:52 PM
Readering said...: Bad shim.; 12/19/20, 12:23 AM
Rusty said...: Blogger Birkel said...
"You probably wouldn't personally march me into the gas chambers, Robert Cook.
But you do support the fascists.

I know you want to pretend you don't but that is also a lie.
I pity your corrupt soul."

No. He'll be handing out the flyers on how to behave in the Stolypin cars on your way to the camps.
And to answer J. We have nothing to fear from Venezuela except the ideology. The fact that they outlawed the private ownership of firearms in 2012 has nothing to do with anything.
My over/under for the Biden junta to promote more restrictive firearm ownership is ten days.; 12/19/20, 5:53 AM
Birkel said...: I take the over, Rusty.
But I would think more than three rules meant to bankrupt gun manufacturers are promulgated in the first 30 days.; 12/19/20, 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...: re: Tom Cruise's rant. Check this out. I sold cars for a while. One night (we worked until 9pm) so, one night the Sales Manager gathered us together, and he exploded on a guy who was...underperforming. I mean, this guy was ripped to shreds. As a salesman at this dealership, I was in the top 3 of 13, so I had a benign appreciation of the motivation being imparted.

I didn't think Tom Cruise had it in him, but he became a Producer, not just an actor. Producers gotta produce. He lit it up. Yeah, I get it. Happens. Make the numbers.`; 12/19/20, 6:40 PM