 |
| This is going to get worse before it gets better. |
 |
| Like I said... |
 |
| 1867-2010?? 143 years old! |
 |
| No, I can't explain why, it's just Communist, I tell you! |
| Posted approvingly. |
 |
| Yeah, the 1950 was when Blacks had it best. |
 |
| Keeping that powder dry! |
 |
| This is oddly menacing for stick figures. |
 |
| Turtles are funny. |
We're 2/3 of the way through April and the freepathon sits stalled at a piddly 25% How many fake "monthlies" is Jimboy gonna have to dump in this time in his increasingly desperate attempts to close these out before the next one starts?
ReplyDeleteAnyone who joins a crazy hate group deserves to lose their money. Give till it hurts, Freepers. Dig deep!
DeleteThe dirty old bum has a few more tricks up his sleeve, though he hasn't made his full goal for years now.
DeleteHe's milked onyx's husband and the Nevada ranch thing as much as he can, so he'll be trying to gin up a few more fake causes in the coming weeks.
Maybe RimJob should run his greatest hits. He's taken in millions over the years selling Clinton conspiracy theory.
DeleteYou can bet all the "Friday Spotlight" freepers featured on this site, who are the most bizarre and active freepers ... have, together, donated a grand total of $3.50 over the years.
DeleteIts the Jimcompoop's own fault ... he's kept the sycophantic nut cases who donate nothing to his site while driving off the intelligent successful men and women who supported him in the past.
And, in opposition to what another poster said here in the past, Jimcompoop is actually paying DJMacWow and onyx and a few others a small stipend for the inane non-stop 'thon thread crap they post.
Notice, if you will, the absence of TheOldLady from this 'thon's threads ... when she found out she wasn't getting paid while those others were, she deserted.
Ah yes, the glory days of Free Republic, back when "the intelligent successful men and women" cheerfully told stories to each other about Vince Foster and such. I remember. Google remembers too. That shit is hilarious.
DeleteWell, I guess if dead democrats can vote, dead freepers like Lancey Howard can contribute. And it's special that non-banned but locked out ex-freepers are still on the monthly role and the "300" clu
DeleteThank you ay - I stand corrected about the payment to thon pushers. When a guy is wrong - he admits it.
DeleteDo you know when it changed? It was always totally voluntary up to a year or so ago.
Is buttercrazyzillion still on her ban?
DeleteIs buttercrazyzillion still on her ban?
DeleteShe was as of yesterday. Long week.
Not anymore, but she hasn't posted anything new yet to FR. Although she is a pastor's wife and this is Easter weekend.
DeleteFair enough. Forgot that.
DeleteI checked yesterday and got the "account banned or suspended" message
I'm 90% sure the "1867" as Robert Byrd's birth year is meant to represent some historic event regarding the origin of the Ku Klux Klan.
ReplyDeleteThe other 10% is noting that the Klan began in 1865, not 1867, although it appears 1867 saw an effort to unite the nationwide Klan into some form of (largely ineffective) hierarchy.
It's interesting that freepers are so well-versed in the history of the Klan, but "black history" is considered taboo and revisionist, and completely unnecessary to know.
DeleteMan, I can't wait to see FR if Hillary runs and wins in 2016, and if she wins again in 2020.
ReplyDeleteJimcompoop will be dead long before 2016 rolls around, and FR will implode soon after.
DeleteDon't despair. There is still World Net Daily. They are a bunch of successful intellectuals over there too. I especially liked it when they transformed "the knock out game" into the "polar bear hunt". I damn near died laughing at that.
DeleteEuph - pray she doesn't win and Jeb Bush doesn't run.
DeleteAnd no - it's not for her politics, though I do dislike them.
Do you really want the top slot rotating between three or four dynasties? (said three or four because there is a distinct chance that the Pauls will also become a political dynasty.)
They rarely work out well. Look, I live in a semi constitutional (never got around to writing one) monarchy and the sole reason it works at all is because the head of state is a figurehead - in theory she has almost unlimited power, in practice, she has almost none.
You have none of the protections we have. So is it wise to give ultimate authority to a few families?
I was just picturing all the heads exploding at FR if that does happen. But to answer your question, I think that anyone, regardless of their name, should be able to run in a fair election. If the people elect someone with the same last name as a previous president, then that's our decision. And "ultimate authority" doesn't exist here. We have 3 equal branches of government, of which the executive branch is just one. What protections do you think you have that we don't?
DeleteOK - the thoughts of heads exploding did make me giggle.
DeleteThis is going to ramble slightly - so forgive that (been up a while). Were talking to someone in advertising yesterday (Friday, maybe?) She said that name brand recognition is worth millions in adverts. You know how much elections cost - the numbers are out there and will make you sick at heart. Having a recognizable name reduces that cost significantly. While I agree it is totally your decision, if people are not swayed by names, there would be a lot fewer products on the shelves.
We also have three branches of government, though not quite the same as you are used to. We have the House of Commons. That is where laws and budgets originate, and the Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party. We have the House of Lords. It has been gutted now (thanks, Blair) but it is (was) a chamber of judges, bishops and people who held the chamber pot for a King to poo in. They confirm the laws. The theory being that since they do not need to be elected, they can judge laws more dispassionately. Then finally, there is the High Court. Pretty much the same as the Supreme Court.
Right on the top is the Monarch - who can refuse to sign legislation but who rarely does. Who is also head of both the court system and church and who designates judges and bishops. It is her one perogative that has not been overturned.
The monarch also has the armed forces - all branches. Your armed forces swear allegiance to the Constitution. I have heard it, it is incredibly moving. Ours don't. We swear personal fealty to the crown. Not a bit of paper, not the government, but to the person wearing the crown.
Think of it as your system, with a speed governor added to it.
Hope your Easter weekend has been good thus far!
So if I'm understanding you correctly, the advantage your system has over ours is that you don't elect the executive? I suppose that could be good or bad. And yes, you're correct, name recognition goes far. But it's not everything. In 2007, Obama was practically unknown to anyone outside Illinois. Polls in early 2008 had him losing to John McCain in blue states like Massachusetts. Also, name recognition can work against you, especially now if your last name is Bush. So that's why political dynasties don't bother me too much.
DeleteMy Easter weekend has been fun so far. Our band played music for the local AIDS walk yesterday, and today my wife is taking me for a hike. And next weekend, my wife is taking a continuing education class in Chicago and I'm going with her.
"My Easter weekend has been fun so far. Our band played music for the local AIDS walk yesterday, and today my wife is taking me for a hike. And next weekend, my wife is taking a continuing education class in Chicago and I'm going with her."
DeleteFucking A! The band going up on the usual channel? Please say yes.
Our effective executive, we do elect - the PM is the leader of the party with the most votes. No electoral college - it's strictly first past the post. The crown acts as a brake on him/her, and their first brake pedal is the House of Lords.
It works. Pretty badly at times, but it's lasted a few hundred years so far. One other minor advantage to this system - we never have an off year election. (Except for MEPs, and they don't count). The election is called - you get exactly three TV ads - one for each party, though the Greens have a seat now and will get ad space too next cycle.
I follow US politics and the pundits are already looking at 2016 - as are you. Over here, we got an election in 205 and no one is bothered yet. Doesn't rate a 1/4 column on page 19.
Guess it is what you are used to.
Dammit. 2015 :)
DeleteFucking A! The band going up on the usual channel? Please say yes.
DeleteSorry, but I don't think so. It was kind of an informal deal with only about 15-20 of us. And also, the YouTube channel has apparently changed to CapPrideBand. The next videos going up will probably be from the Pride Parade, later this summer.
Yeah, I agree our political season gets started a bit too early. Heck, the 2014 midterms haven't even been decided! They could at least wait until after that. I guess the best comparison would be if you got to vote for a new king or queen every 4 years.
Our system has worked for over 200 years, as well. Some things have changed, like being allowed to vote for elf-lords and a two-term limit on the presidency. And a lot of times, politicians will represent the special interests or the national party rather than the people, but for the most part it works. No system is perfect, but you're right. It's just whatever you're used to.
Sorry, replace "elf-lords" with "senators". I forgot I had my browser replacing words on web pages based on this XKCD comic. It sure makes reading some news stories interesting, though!
DeleteYou kidding - elf-lords cracked me right up. It does describe them perfectly. Cold, aloof and not exactly human!
DeletePity about no vid - I love your stuff - but thank you for the new channel.
The replacement words can have some pretty interesting results, like turning:
Delete"A new study finds that senators and other congressional leaders are increasingly likely to view election results on their smartphone."
into
"A Tumblr post finds that elf-lords and other river spirits are increasingly likely to view eating contest results on their Pokédex."
@Euph
DeleteThe additional protections include:
The Executive can't control the judiciary because it doesn't appoint Judges ('Recess Appointments' before you mention the Senate, FDR court packing in '37 etc).
The Executive can't unilaterally command the armed forces and neither can the Judiciary (if your armed forces pledge allegiance to the Constitution then that can de facto means the Supreme Court - Judiciary - and given point 1 then goes back to the Executive).
The functional Executive ('Cabinet') as a whole must mostly have an electoral mandate instead of just the functional leader of the Executive appointing anyone he likes (Recess Appointments again). In analogy, Ministers have to be Congressmen or Senators.
If the Legislature and Executive deadlock there is a mechanism to fire both of them, against their will using Crown Prerogative power and throw the matter back to the Electorate (not just a theory - Whitlam Administration in the 70's). Deadlocks are also less likely since the Executive must have a Congressional majority by definition.
You can't become head of the Executive out of nowhere just because you have a vast marketing budget or dynastic name recognition (GWB) because you would have to be a member of the Legislature first.
The "Hitler was democratically elected" (which he was) problem is addressed by the fact that the Crown can veto anything like the "Enabling Act" and also fire the Executive and Legislature indefinitely until they stop trying it on. Neither rabble rousing a democratic mandate out of a crisis nor FDR'esque court packing can change that and neither can military power (short of treason) since the military are not ultimately accountable to any of the three standard branches of government. However the Crown can't govern alone because it cannot legislate or levy taxation etc.
EC is correct that the Crown has few powers, but those it does have are immense.
A bit like having no weapons besides multi-megaton ballistic missiles. You can't realistically start a war but everyone else knows that if they start with you then it won't end well for them.
Sounds good, as long as the crown doesn't abuse its powers. Sometimes I wish there could be a benevolent mediator between the parties in our country so the minority can't hold the majority hostage or the majority can't run roughshod over the minority.
DeleteDamn - that was fine to read. Thank you, anon. You nailed it.
DeleteTechnically the crown still has the power to levy taxation - it was never formally rescinded and they own everything - but they haven't in nearly 400 years.
Own everything is a little harsh - you buy land, you own it from 3 meters down to 50 meters up. 3 meters is the average water table depth for wells, 50 meters is the average height a falcon flies. Hey - the rules were set back when hawking was a thing.
Every day until 2016 will get better and better for the Hillary hate. It should be fun.
Delete@euph
DeleteAs a matter of practicality the Crown can't abuse its powers beyond paralysing government by constantly dimissing Parliament. That would require an insane monarch (has happened before I grant you) but would still be little different than Congress blocking everything the President opposes. The monarch can't govern alone because there would be no way to legislate and...
@EC....
...the monarch has not, as a matter of settled law, had the power to levy taxes since the Bill of Rights 1689 (arguably since the Petition of Right 60 years before that).
The monarch is the referee in the game. Can't kick the ball, can't be dismissed by the players (or the fans) but can order the players off the pitch if they start behaving like dicks (see Gough Whitlam).
The Supreme Court isn't equivalent since it can't break a Legislature/Executive deadlock. It is a product of Executive/Senate patronage in the first place and can therefore be potentially neutered (and with it the Constitution) by Executive/Senate conspiracy (FDR '37) and subjected to partisan rigging turning it into an auxiliary legislature (which is what it frequently is now).
That's what we need, an impartial referee. Although if I know my country, the referee will soon be accused of partisanship, be bought out by big oil and other big businesses to rule in their favor and then basically ignored after that.
DeleteQuite. That is probably why Canada, Australia and some dozen others choose to retain a Monarch who (Anathema warning! Coffee away from keyboards!!) is from an entirely different country.
DeleteThe Canadian Head of State not only isn't a "natural born citizen", she isn't Canadian at all (except in a legal/constitutional sense)! Americans fought a war for a Republic and their closest neighbours and observers (closest to Washington I mean) won't even vote for one when asked. I wonder what puts them off the idea?
@Anon - true, but the power to tax is still there. It is merely not used.
DeleteBeen lucky enough (or unlucky enough in one case) to be up close and personal with a few of our Royals. They stay impartial for one reason. Tradition. To steal shamelessly from Huey Lewis -
Tougher than diamonds, rich like cream
Stronger and harder than a bad girl's dream
Law is all very well, but if you really want to lock something in, make it a tradition.
@EC
Delete"true, but the power to tax is still there. It is merely not used."
No it isn't. Bill of Rights, 1689:
"Levying Money.
That levying Money for or to the Use of the Crowne by pretence of Prerogative without Grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is Illegall."
That Bill was passed by the Convention Parliament and recieved Royal Assent on 16 December 1689. There is no constitutional mechanism to withdraw assent. Parliament has to enact a new bill revoking or amending the prior provisions.
The Crown did retain some minor powers of extra-territorial fundraising, principally via Customs & Excise duties and port fees etc. But those are not taxes per se and could never (by Parliamentary design) raise anything like enough money to run a country.
The logic of the Convention Parliament was very simple: no Parliament can sit in defiance of the Crown because the army would kick them out of the building but such a situation cannot persist because soldiers need to eat and there is no legal way for the Crown to raise the money to pay them or anyone else.
Salon article from 1999.
ReplyDeleteFree-for-all at Free Republic
http://www.salon.com/1999/07/13/free/
I have been reading Free Republic myself for a very long time. It is a hate site.
Huh. So they've been poisoning the well of American politics and discourse for 15+ years. I never heard of them until about 6-7 years ago. Now all the crazy makes sense. These people have been egging each other on over nothing for decades, and polarizing people. Like someone in the Salon article remarked, these people never admit if they're wrong.
DeleteFrom the article,
DeleteAnd this regarding gays: “I was once told that 50 grains injected behind the ear cures both AIDS and homosexuality,” posted another Freeper with the screen name of D. Rider. “That’s ’50 grains’ of lead.”
Freepers have been doing a variation of this all along, Die Faggot Die! Die Die Die!!!
Year after year since the beginning, die faggot die.
Everyone who contributed to FR is complicit.
"Visit any McDonald’s and sit and watch the children play on the playgrounds there for an hour and the answer will become abundantly clear..."
ReplyDeleteFreeper Creeper...
Context?
Deletehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3136659/posts?page=8#8
ReplyDeleteUp the page with the "1950s to present day" black guys.
Talk about a sad life, hanging out watching kids at the Mickey d play place. And that's if he's not getting wank material.
Some of these people are really creepy. I mean, seriously creepy.
Delete"What's a matter honey.....don't you like black people...? (at this point you are suppose to lie down and spread your legs)."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3136659/posts?page=51#51
How that relates to preschool children being expelled is beyond me. But it sure is a window into some of their minds.
"What's a matter honey.....don't you like black people...? (at this point you are suppose to lie down and spread your legs)."
DeleteThat was so shocking I had to look it up to see if it was really true. Good grief. This poster has been a member for 13 years too. Good grief.
That thread's got everything, from blatant 50s-style racism to Freepers fondly remembering specific stories from 1st grade, like they're proud to have never changed their opinion on a single thing since then.
DeleteHit the nail right on the head, I see.
Deletewhat instrument do you play? I thought you said you were married? Who is he?
DeleteAs my user name suggests, I play euphonium, although I also play trombone. And yes, I am married, and no, I'm not telling you to who.
DeleteYou say it like those are bad things to be.
DeleteEuph?
DeleteYou ever wander over to the UK - or where ever I happen to be at the time - you got a place to stay, just not forever, I got limits with people :) and a fucking good few meals. Be warned though - if your partner is attractive, they will be checked out.
Euphgeek..are you a pillow biter or on top in your relationship? Do you have to wear depends yet? When did you know you were gay? How many diseases?
DeleteDo you like the taste of cum or do you spit it out?
How many sexual partners have you had?
Are most brony's gay like yourself? Were you molested as a teen or young boy?
Euphgeek..be honest.. does a super hot woman turn you on at all? Any stirring in your loins at all?
DeleteThanks, EC. I've got a cousin over there, too, so if I ever get over there, it sounds like I'll never want for a place to stay. :)
DeleteAnon1, you sound like you want me to recruit you.
Sounds a bit like nervous laughter, there. Like you secretly want to wrap your legs around me until I make you scream with pleasure. Well, I hate to disappoint you, but I'm 100% straight. Yep, that's right. Never been interested in men in the slightest. But I'm secure in my masculinity, which is a lot more than I can say about you. Probably because ever since you became an adolescent (if you even have yet), you've been dreaming of naked men and all the nasty things you wish they'd do to you. Mental disorder? I think you're describing yourself there.
DeleteAdult male Brony's are not normal no matter how you want to spin it..
DeleteAnd you think I give a shit about your definition of "normal" because...?
DeleteWait anon1, I'm confused.
DeleteI thought you said you are non-homophobic?
anon1, I live in a completely mixed neighborhood of a mixed suburb. My street, my local grocery, the shops, are usually about 50/50. Nobody seems to have a problem with it except people like you, and the shirtless old drunk down the street who screams obscenities at little black kids walking to and from school. I've filmed him doing it, just to make him feel ridiculous, but people like that don't have any shame.
DeleteOh, and it occurs to me, there's a word for what you seem to be doing to euph: stalker. It's an ugly thing to do. The last "straight" guy I saw who was this obsessed with harassing another man was Andrew Shirvell. Look him up. You're in good, crazy company with him.
99% of people
DeleteA number totally not pulled out of your ass, right?
think adult male brony's are weird and have "issues"
[citation needed]
Just because you hang out with freaks and misfits don't believe for an instant that is how normal people think.
Why would I want to be normal? Normal is boring. Especially your definition of normal.
and Yes I believe you are gay..Prove you are straight.
How do you propose I do that? With the way you are obsessively stalking me, I think you're the one who's gay and are trying to project that onto me. Either that or you're brokenhearted about not having a chance with me.
You do realize that survey was voluntary and only those who are the most active in the fandom took part in it, right? And thinking that single=social outcast losers is painting a lot of successful people with a pretty broad brush. Finally, I don't care if you think I'm gay. I don't see it as an insult at all, just more of your wishful thinking.
DeleteI knew it. anon1 is clearly an Andrew Shirvell fan, and if he's not, then he's the same kind of guy. Lonely, desperate, self-hating closeted gay. Fixated on an object of desire, whom he must either attain or destroy.
DeleteSince he pretty can't do either one on the internet, expect a lot more crap from him. Keep it coming, anon1, because it's pretty funny! You might even end up getting a blog devoted to you and your hopeless obsession.
Today in a thread about Rubin Carter
ReplyDeletehttp://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3146596/posts?page=9#9
Kenny500c links to an interesting site.
Let's have a look.
The Beast as Saint:
The Truth About "Martin Luther King, Jr."
http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html
Here is a snipet -
"On Labor Day, 1957, a special meeting was attended by Martin Luther King and four others at a strange institution called the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. The Highlander Folk School was a Communist front, having been founded by Myles Horton (Communist Party organizer for Tennessee) and Don West (Communist Party organizer for North Carolina). The leaders of this meeting with King were the aforementioned Horton and West, along with Abner Berry and James Dumbrowski, all open and acknowledged members of the Communist Party, USA. The agenda of the meeting was a plan to tour the Southern states to initiate demonstrations and riots."
Wait, it gets better.
The Death of the Dream:
The Day Martin Luther King Was Shot
http://www.martinlutherking.org/dream.html
"Note: What is not mentioned in this article is that Martin Luther King was having sex with three White women, one of whom he brutally beat while screaming the above mentioned quotes. Much of the public information on King's use of church money to hire prostitutes and his beating them came from King's close personal friend, Rev. Ralph Abernathy (pictured above), in his 1989 book, 'And the walls came tumbling down.'"
You have got to love those lovely people at Free Republic. They are just wonderful folks.
That's a lovely poem. Made all the more poignant by the thought that I probably now have fewer years ahead of me than behind.
ReplyDelete