it over rover

"When is the last time Trump gave up."

not the last...but...when he lost the lawsuit for his university, or his charity, or his bankruptcies, or the dozen or so times during his presidency when he got blowback.

he's dust, vapor, smoke, gas.

be happy we've got someone capable, hardworking, honest, trustworthy...give sanity a chance.

BTW: what was it the orangettes use to say? something like..."you've never gotten over losing the election"?

sing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75V3H-FXf78

Ahhh...So all those "takers", the welfare queens and system abusers who live on the government's money aren't the dregs of society, they're the smart people intelligent enough to take whatever they can take, and hardworking taxpayers are the stupid cucks too dumb to get their handouts and chill?!? I had no idea you were such a ridiculously far left socialist...what have you done with Bob?

You realize Trump is that dumb government, and he thinks the checks are great since he gets to put his name on them and distract you from the trillions he's just giving his large donors....and himself since reportedly most of his properties have applied for bailouts. Citizens got 1/8 of the first stimulus, and Trump has insisted they'll get nothing in the next rounds. Guaranteed that won't mean his family though, they'll get their checks.

I hope i live to see the day where people think...'black folks are so peaceful, hardworking and law-abiding'.

Here in Washington State:

http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/news/crime-fire/article_1954e1fe-3555-11e4-a06e-0019bb2963f4.html
"Grant County Sheriff Tom Jones announced plans to hold homeowners in the Larson Housing area accountable for crimes committed on the properties they own."

He doesn't say how he will hold home owners responsible for crimes committed on their property, but civil forfeiture is the only legal option I know of.

After the story was printed in the local paper people were upset, and he decided to clarify his statements. https://www.facebook.com/GrantCoSheriff/posts/338345812994397

He is only targeting "absentee private landlords" ie people who rent out their house but do not live in the city.

"I am clarifying this because I don’t want hardworking live-in homeowners in the Larson Community to think law enforcement will be holding them solely responsible for someone else's criminal actions which happen on their property."

Now that the locals think they are safe and only property owners from Seattle are being targeted, the story disappeared.

If you live in Grant County, please vote this guy out.

so many components to this video. Trance's arguments may be worthless, but the video itself is great.

you have the class aspect. Here we are shown this nice upper class home of a hardworking man (which alone opens up the sub-argument of whether or not he really does work hard or does he just reap the benefits of his employees' work,) and we're supposed to feel bad because the police confiscated their house over something relatively trivial. Would you care if it was a lower class home? middle class? or would you just assume the lower class family are probably guilty and deserve it?

Then you got the whole war on drugs component, which is even more nuanced because heroin is a nasty drug which I would agree should remain illegal. But then weigh that against the idea that it was a trivial amount of heroin. Would you feel bad for the family if the son wasn't small time and had a couple grand worth in the house? how about a 100 grand? a million?

All completely separate from the police abuse and corruption issue that's already been discussed. This video is crazy dense with issues that need to be addressed

#2 They weren't dealing drugs in that video, were they? And the Oakland vice squad does conduct raids, does it not? I personally know a detective who worked there for years.

#3: "how many slaves do you own?"

Obviously slavery violates self-ownership rights. Shooting a gun on your own property violates no one's rights.

#4: "They document it in hopes the police will do something."

Don't hold your breath.

#5: "Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks "

Sure, like in Pittsburgh or Singapore.

> "they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them."

Tax breaks is not "paying them." In fact, you have no moral right to tax. Taxation is theft.

#6: You're too vague positing little more than a bunch of opinions and declarations. Nothing here which really warrants a response.

#7: "They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period."

That's what I said. Only "public" property allows that kind of violent crime. No legitimate business would. So, while Disney can raise the standard of living on and around its grounds, it's under no pretense to maintain the civility outside of its property.

> "They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation."

When I say "regulation," I mean state-imposed regulation. Of course, however someone wants to regulate within their own private property is within their rights to self-ownership and private property. It's fine since it is not aggression/coercion. I'm not against private regulation. In fact, I regulate who enters into my house or uses my car. Duh. Don't you?

#8: "Oakland HAS been high crime with little money"

This is often the case. The same underlying causes for crime and poverty.

> "Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street."

Certainly not while the owners are using the property or while they are liable for allowing a crime to occur there. But tell me: where specifically?

I was making reference to what is happening in that video. If you want to talk about other specific instances, then tell me which ones and we can look at each one specifically.

> "Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable."

I don't know where you get this "mob justice" from. You are reading into what I said or something.

#9: "nor can you for $35 a month."

Yes I can, and better than what the police offers.

> "People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?"

If you are talking about the police, then nothing really.

> "Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know."

Technically, they are used mostly to pay for war and the national debt. But police is also paid from taxes.

#10: "Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there."

I don't know if this is true, but apparently you do. Somehow, I doubt they are struggling so much that they cannot buy a gun.

> "they can't afford rent and food"

Most "hardworking people" in Oakland cannot buy food? Really?

> "especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up."

I guess they'll still have you to pay for them and the wars and the debt. Although I'm not against charity, in fact I am actively engaged in such activities. But if you need my money, then put the guns away and ask nicely.

> "it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there"

But most law abiding people don't want to break the law on this or many other things.

> "Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me."

I kind of do.

> "I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream"

No, that was @enoch who said it was.

> "it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing."

You always have 'terrible governing' when it comes from the state, politicians and such. It's a logical fallacy to conclude otherwise.

> "I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more)."

Sorry, but this will NEVER happen. (But, hey, good luck with that. I'm certainly not stopping you. Go ahead. "Do better.")

> "Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it."

Then you must not be paying attention. Virtually all progress comes from the free market.

And again, if you are not interested, then it doesn't matter if you find it or not, does it? It's your life. You decide what you want and go ahead and do it and live with the consequences.

> "Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm."

In my opinion, a government cannot be libertarian. The logical conclusion to libertarian non-aggression is anarchy, i.e., no ruler; no state. A "libertarian" state is not really "libertarian." It's a contradiction in terms.

> "I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree."

So what? Who cares if they agree or not? They obviously don't agree and, therefore, as you say, they live in Oakland and are "struggling." If most people in Oakland agreed, they could probably turn things around. But as you say, they don't. So they, like everyone else, must live with the consequences of their decisions, their beliefs, their behaviors.

See, the good thing about being libertarian is that you don't really need to convince anyone of anything. That futile endeavor is the lot of those who hope -- against all evidence -- that they will somehow get "good government" if they can only convince others to elect the "better politicians." I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. I'm certainly not counting on it ever happening. You have your idea of what "good government" means and how to get there, and so do many millions of other people. And they obviously don't agree.

> "And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results."

Questionable in what way(s)? What do you know about it?

> "BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think."

The Tea Party is not libertarian. They have some libertarian preferences, but that's it. They are certainly not anarchists.

Anyway, in sum of all of this, let me say that, if you think you have the answers, then I encourage you to put them into practice. See if you can and deal with the problem!

#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.

"To the farmer in all of us" how hokey does that sound? I don't know, maybe because I grew up on a ranch that I don't get this whole romanticized image that farmers are some how more hardworking than other people who work in labor sectors.

>> ^bobknight33:

Obama people are utter fools. They deserve neither jobs nor a better future because that is what they are voting for, a poorer future.


Aw, someone's bitter because they aren't getting their own way. You need to toughen up a bit.

>> ^bobknight33:

Obama people are utter fools. They deserve neither jobs nor a better future because that is what they are voting for, a poorer future.


If you have listened to Romney over the years, and still seriously believe that he is remotely qualified to hold the highest position in the country/world, then I fear your powers of rational, reasoned, thought, are sadly lacking. How anyone could vote for that magic underwear wearing fool is scary!

Holy fuck, please get away from your computer and interact with real flesh and blood human persons.

I refuse to believe you can't comprehend how disgusting and illogical this comment is.

"Sure prison rape is awful. But why make prisoners safer? We should really be focusing on making sure no one ever breaks the law, ever. Then there wouldn't be any prisoners to rape in the first place. Duuurrr."

It's simple Pennypacker.
You're a human. Immigrants are humans. Prisoners are humans.

If it's unjust to treat WinstonField AssholePacker like this.
It's clearly unjust to treat immigrants and prisoners like this. Full stop.

Who the fuck cares what law these people broke.
You break the law all the goddamn time and no one humiliates and degrades you for it.

These immigrants are trying to live "the american dream".
Shouldn't you admire them for that.
Shouldn't you stand up and protect them from these injustices.
Shouldn't you recognize their determination and hardwork to achieve that dream by any means necessary?!

You should. But you can't.
Cause you're too wrapped up in your "conservative" moralfaggotry to stop and examine the reality of things.

I.E. - The problem here is that the Border Patrol abuse EVERYONE. Fully legal citizens included.

Yet your moralfaggotry conveniently allows you to gloss over that fact and the root of the injustice.
All in favor of tooting the - "Illegal immigration is the real problem" horn.

TL;DR

The problem isn't illegal immigration.
The problem is the systemic abuse, degradation and misconduct by people trusted with authority.

Pennypacker can't empathize. Needs to be tortured next time he gets a speeding/parking ticket.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing new here. Such things have plagued the system for decades. Only message I get is that the US needs a better, better, higher, deeper wall so that only legal immigration can take place.

If you were looking for sympathy, look elsewhither. Illegals get no sympathy from me. No one approves of abuses.

If you want to eliminate these abuses, the solution is clear. Eliminate illegal immigration by slamming the south border shut.

And yet should we not arrest them? Should we give them 'amnesty'? Should we just get rid of prisons and go to some sort of hippie liberal honor system? Pht. So what's your point?

If you're gay move somewhere else. Don't keep living in a state that treats you as a second class citizen. Just move somewhere where you can bring your expertise and your abilities and starve those fucking idiots of good, loyal, hardworking people.

Yeah I know...sounds like giving up and sounds like retreating. I'm just saying if I was unhappy somewhere I'd fucking move, cause fuck them.

>> ^Bruti79:

I think there are times and places to do this. A DUI check point is not one of them. They're just trying to make the road safer from drunk drivers.


Absolutely. This video doesn't show anything other than one asshole wasting the time of a couple genuinely good cops. Yes you were legally in the right. You were also a complete dick to some decent hardworking people.

I wrote to my Senator (Orrin Hatch-R., Utah, responsible for the Protect IP Act) about SOPA and its problems and gave them a rather "cool" scathing review about its faults and errors and the public demonstrations that have taken place like GoDaddy and the fact that three major companies had pulled out from the SOPA bill (although their political alliance group is still signed into SOPA--so they can still look good in the public eye and still, really, support the bill) and got the "printing press" release as follows (which has nothing to do with what I wrote, really--I know this bill is coming, but really, an auto-send out letter for pissed constituents?):

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property (PROTECT IP) Act.

On May 12, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy and I introduced the PROTECT IP Act. If enacted, S. 968 would provide law enforcement with important tools to stop foreign websites “dedicated to infringing activities.” In other words, the bill targets the most egregious offenders of online theft who profit from counterfeit products and pirated content. These goods can range from new movie and music releases to pharmaceuticals and consumer products. With this legislation, we send a strong message to those selling or distributing pirated content or counterfeit goods online that the United States will strongly protect intellectual property rights.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign-registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must first seek approval from a federal court before taking any action. In determining whether an Internet site is “dedicated to infringing activities,” a federal judge must weigh all of the facts carefully in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – just like what happens today in shutting down an illegal bricks and mortar storefront.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a common assumption with some online users that illegal downloads and purchases online are free and harmless. This is far from true. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people’s lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people, and drive up costs for other consumers. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American intellectual property, and this undermines legitimate commerce.

This also has a direct impact on Utah. As you may know, Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Utah’s workforce is also a draw to filmmakers who come for one of the most highly educated and hardworking workforces in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. There is no doubt that intellectual property theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah’s economy and its workforce. This same impact can be seen nationwide.

On July 22, 2011, the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably reported S. 968 by unanimous consent. While it is unclear when the bill will be considered by the full Senate, the legislation enjoys strong support with 39 bipartisan cosponsors to date. Please know that my Senate colleagues and I are committed to crafting consensus legislation and welcome suggestions on ways to improve the bill. Unfortunately there has been some misinformation circulated about what the PROTECT IP Act aims to accomplish. In an effort to be of assistance, I have enclosed “Fact vs. Fiction” information about the legislation. I hope this information will be helpful to you.

Again, thank you for writing. I welcome your continued input on issues of concern.



Complete BULLSHIT. I hate my politicians, they're fucking half-wits!

That's not the problem. The problem is that people want their cake and eat it, too.

What percentage of Americans would say the US government should take money away from successful people and give it to unsuccessful people? I bet you'd get a low percentage.

The problem is we have conflicting ideals and goals. We want equality, but we also want smart, hardworking people to be rewarded for what they do. When that results in economic stratification, then people complain about that. We want economic freedom, but we also want things that do not coincide with economic freedom, like environmental protection, everyone getting the same fair shot as kids in every possible way so that no one has an advantage of becoming rich, a Wall Street sector that is regulated to prevent shenanigans, etc.

People in this country want easy to understand solutions even if they won't work or would make things worse, or solutions that tend to be painless, even when they don't exist. We don't want cuts to social programs, AND we want lower taxes! How did that work out for us?

And I'm sorry, but often, the general public is pretty stupid. 51% of Americans believe Wall Street does more harm than good for the economy?! If that's an accurate representation of Americans, holy crap do Americans lack a fundamental understanding of our economy. Wall Street needs significant reforms, and they deserve a steeping pile of blame for why the economy crashed, but that's a ridiculous irrational belief born out of anger at what happened. It's understandable emotionally why they would think that, but it's also pretty stupid.