Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $55,700
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 63%!! Thank you all very much for your continuing support!

Posts by x

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • George H.W. Bush hospitalized for low blood pressure and fatigue

    05/27/2018 1:38:41 PM PDT · 45 of 49
    x to Kalamata
    Years ago a colleague of mine suffered from low blood pressure. She always kept a bag of red licorice in her desk drawer for when a bout came on because it helped to raise the blood pressure back up.

    That's not what gets "Cop-a-feels" juices flowing ...

  • Deep State Confession: 2017 UK Article Indicates Obama’s Spygate Started in 2015 – Much Earlier than

    05/27/2018 1:34:01 PM PDT · 15 of 24
    x to Texas Fossil
    In my deep state confession
    When I tell all the world that I love you
    In my deep state confession
    When I say all the things that I want to
  • How Star Trek Became A Tribal Battleground Of PC Art

    05/27/2018 1:26:13 PM PDT · 56 of 57
    x to fieldmarshaldj
    The Trek universe (at least before the current batch of ultra-PC garbage) was about a color-blind society. That’s the goal of Conservatism.

    Not so much when the show came out, though. The idea and the show were considered to be liberal (in a mild, JFK sort of way).

    It was about resolving problems (if at all possible) when they occurred. That’s what Conservatives are about.

    Kirk was the rationalist come to set things in order -- as you say, to resolve problems. At the time, liberals saw themselves in that way.

    Fifty years later, the White guy come to solve people's problems is in for a lot of grief from all the people with grievances.


    I was going to say that there weren't "social justice warriors" fifty years ago, but then I remembered that in a real way there were. Somehow, the atmosphere was very different.

    I think the difference between then and now is that most people in positions of authority were White men, and those who weren't white or male weren't making any kind of challenge to what were regarded as the prevailing values of society.

    It's different now and it was even different by the end of the 1960s. There's been a real sense of revolt against anything identified with the old order. Nowadays, if you still want to solve problems, you better not be a White man.


    There was a tension built into the show (and maybe into liberalism, too) from the beginning. Kirk wasn't supposed to interfere in what was happening on all those planets, but he always found a way to get involved. Sort of like how people start out being "tolerant" and "non-judgmental" but end up making a judgment and taking sides in the end.

  • How Star Trek Became A Tribal Battleground Of PC Art

    05/26/2018 1:47:47 PM PDT · 31 of 57
    x to Rummyfan
    To paraphrase Dr. Carol Marcus, Jim Kirk was many things, but he was never a social justice warrior.

    Kirk was a Kennedy-style liberal, a "Spacethefinalfrontiersman," going from planet to planet to spread or defend Western Democracy.

    Neocons inherited than mantle.

    So if Cruz is a neocon, he has every right to Captain Kirk.

    Trying to fit Kirk (or Rod Serling) into today's politics isn't easy or particularly worthwhile.

    Too much has changed in 50 years.

  • Soylo: A Soy Wars Soyry Will Be Disney's Lowest-Earning Soy Wars Entry Yet

    05/26/2018 1:31:51 PM PDT · 44 of 59
    x to Getready
    They made that mistake in the first movie, and reference it in later movies.

    By this point, the film makers and the audience recognize the mistake and it's become sort of an "in joke."

  • Soylo: A Soy Wars Soyry Will Be Disney's Lowest-Earning Soy Wars Entry Yet

    05/26/2018 1:28:45 PM PDT · 42 of 59
    x to PapaBear3625
    Girl stories generally revolve around the girl winning the handsome Alpha Male’s eternal affections. Cinderella. Snow White.

    Guy stories revolve around a guy going on a journey of self-discovery and accomplishment, often starting out as just an average nobody, being thrust into circumstances where he must rise into greatness or perish. Luke Skywalker against the Death Star. Frodo against Sauron.

    Disney, for decades, has been doing mostly girl stories (the various Disney princesses). Their current culture doesn’t know how to do a good guy story.


    Disney princesses haven't been trying to "win the handsome Alpha Male's eternal affections" for a long time.

    They've been doing "guy" stuff for a while.

    Disney and the current culture don't really want male heroes that much.

  • Tammy Bruce: Lincoln vs. Obama -- The incredible tale of two libraries

    05/26/2018 1:00:48 PM PDT · 151 of 155
    x to DiogenesLamp; rockrr; BroJoeK
    My point in citing Argentina, Russia, China and Japan was that what you call "the third world" isn't a given. It's something that was created by government policies. Argentina thought it was being exploited by British capitalists, so it turned toward demagoguery and populistic state policies that may or may not have been "socialistic." Those policies ruined the economy.

    Similar ideas about commercial middlemen and capitalistic exploiters ruined Russia. You are pedaling the idea that New York capitalists were exploiting the Old South. It's likely that any government that followed your view would wreck the economy with its attempts to expropriate or redirect existing flows of commerce. Your stupid and childish mockery doesn't address the issues involved.

    That money would have gotten invested, and those investments would have paid dividends into the future. The entire social/economic structure would have been raised as a consequence of capital and investment created by that larger flow of money into their system.

    That did not happen in the West Indies before sugar prices went down. It didn't happen in other countries when rubber or coffee or some other commodity was riding high. It was quite the opposite: providing a single raw material for industrialized countries was a good way to ensure poverty, rather than wealth.

    It is impossible to prove a counterfactual -- to prove authoritatively how things would be if some factors were different. You have to allow for a range of possibilities. I'm not saying definitely that the Confederacy would have been an economic basket case. But that was a real possibility. Ignoring possibilities and dogmatically insisting that you know what would have happened makes your argument and posts ridiculous.

  • Tammy Bruce: Lincoln vs. Obama -- The incredible tale of two libraries

    05/26/2018 1:00:45 PM PDT · 150 of 155
    x to DiogenesLamp; BroJoeK; rockrr
    The boundary line at determining fault is based on who was trying to oppress who. The Southerners were not trying to invade New York, or any other Northern territory. They were no threat to the United States, and they should have been left alone to seek whatever form of government they wished, even if they were a bunch of evil bastards.

    They wanted to break off all the slave territory they could. They wanted Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland, even Arkansas. Weakening the US in other ways would help them to achieve this. Davis, Stephens and the others weren't idealists seeking "self-determination." They were government guys playing Realpolitik and seeking to increase the sphere of their power and the viability of their new state.

    Various laws passed by the Northern coalition had jiggered trade so that it all went through New York, and according to one of BroJoeK's sources, 40% of that income was siphoned off as a consequence.

    So you say. But maybe New York City was more efficient at what it did and the effects of such laws was trivial. And really, I doubt BroJoe would agree with you that money was being "siphoned off."

    You can't make a blanket statement that because they were going to tax exports, this would have made cotton more expensive than what they already had with the Union.

    That is not at all what I said. I said, taxes on cotton would make European producers look to other sources. There was no great bonanza coming by cutting out New York. Most likely money would go to London businessmen, rather than to New Yorkers. But the deflection of trade resulting from export taxes and revulsion at slavery would have had major repercussions for the Confederate economy.

    I very greatly doubt that. I think you are just throwing out another non sequitur in the hopes I won't notice that your claim has no underlying support.

    On the contrary. Southerners used a lot of products produced in the North. Those products likely had lower shipping costs than products from Britain or elsewhere. They were probably more adapted to North American conditions. Slapping a 10% tariff on those goods would make many goods Southerners bought and used everyday more expensive. Dismissing that argument as a non-sequitur just indicates how unserious you are.

  • The hidden reason why Michelle Obama might be showing skin on the cover of her memoir

    05/25/2018 2:33:22 PM PDT · 72 of 126
    x to lucky american
    She’s had a lot of work done. She didn’t look anything like that when Obama was first elected.

    It wouldn't have been easy to cover up any surgery done while she was in the White House. Stuff like that has a way of coming out, even with Democrats.

  • Bill Kristol Looking Around For A Primary Challenger For Trump

    05/25/2018 2:25:31 PM PDT · 40 of 96
    x to entropy12
    Don’t Make Bill Kristol Run For President

    Word is, if he can't get a candidate he may run himself.

  • Who betrayed Anne Frank? Book claims to shed new light {Nazis alerted by Jewish collaborator}

    05/25/2018 2:21:15 PM PDT · 45 of 45
    x to Cronos
    Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes, years later, people connect things they saw or heard long ago with names they learned later and then it becomes a family mythology.

    FWIW: Peter Wyden, father of the senator, wrote a book about Stella Goldschlag, a childhood friend or acquaintance in Berlin who collaborated with the Nazis and betrayed other Jews for money.

  • Tammy Bruce: Lincoln vs. Obama -- The incredible tale of two libraries

    05/25/2018 2:10:40 PM PDT · 141 of 155
    x to DiogenesLamp; BroJoeK; rockrr
    And why would they want that? This sounds like the old saying about Russians who didn't want a cow for themselves, they just wanted their neighbor's cow to die.

    Your idea was that it's all about money (and if it's not it's about power and ego).

    That's when it comes to Abraham Lincoln and people from New York City.

    But for you, the Confederates are choirboys, saintly types who never do anything out of self-interest.

    Grow up and educate yourself.

    If it were less profitable to do it some other way, what need for protectionist laws and tariffs? Do not their very existence serve as proof that costs would have been cut without them?

    Tariffs were low after 1846. Southern states didn't have a legitimate grievance over existing tariff rates. And secessionists in Congress didn't care about the new Morrill rates, because they pulled out of Congress, rather than fight the rate hikes.

    Two things you leave out of the picture:

    1) The CSA was going to tax exports. This would make their cotton more expensive and encourage foreign processors to seek other sources.

    It would also mean more of them money from cotton exports would end up in the pockets of the government, rather than those plantation owners you care so much about. Net result: less money for private investment in productive industry.

    Government could well have played a larger role in the new CSA's economy than it did in the US economy. That was the case under Jefferson Davis's "war socialism" but it could conceivably have been the case even without war.

    2) Confederate tariffs would apply to all imports from the United States. In practice, this would mean that Southerners in the CSA would pay more in tariffs, not less.

    I know you want to think that American goods were junk in comparison to what came from Europe, but consumers, North and South, didn't think that way.

    CSA products would have to pay US tariffs if sold in US markets. European goods imported through the CSA would have to pay two tariffs if sold in the US. The US was internally a free trade zone that encouraged industry. Cut it into two or more pieces and industries would have smaller home markets and fewer opportunities to show a profit.

    I only know this being true of backward third world countries. I don't know of any western style countries that did worse on their own.

    Educate yourself, or if you can't find some one who will.

    Why did some societies become "backward third world countries"?

    Why did Argentina, a country settled largely by Europeans and one of the richest countries in the world at one point, become "backward" and "third world"? By thinking they'd become fabulously wealthy if they cut out the middlemen.

    Why did Russia, again a rapidly developing economy before the revolution eventually become an basket case? Why did non-White China and Japan become such great economic successes? Where were countries like Italy and Spain economically just a few generations back and where would they be without the EU?

    Use your head -- if you can. It wasn't written in stone that some countries would be rich and others poor. Good and bad policy choices and opportunities made a difference. You can't pronounce it as dogma that the Confederacy would be an economic success, especially since cotton prices would eventually come down.

    But of course, nothing anybody says will ever convince you ...

  • David Hogg puts Publix in crosshairs, demands $1 million donation and anti-NRA pledge

    05/25/2018 1:31:46 PM PDT · 127 of 141
    x to Magnatron

    If they pay the money we won’t have to see his pubix hairs?

  • Facepalm: Obama Spy Chief Says Russia Decided Outcome of 2016 Election

    05/24/2018 5:14:55 PM PDT · 49 of 92
    x to mylife
    Smart fridge: lets you know when you're almost out of milk.

    Smart gun: lets you know when you're almost out of bullets?

  • You Can Spot the International Space Station Over Philly Thursday Night

    05/24/2018 5:05:00 PM PDT · 14 of 18
    x to BenLurkin

    So if you've ever said "I wouldn't go within 300 kilometers of Philadelphia," you just might have a career waiting for you in the international space program.

  • Facepalm: Obama Spy Chief Says Russia Decided Outcome of 2016 Election

    05/24/2018 4:46:01 PM PDT · 38 of 92
    x to Kaslin
    There's Clapper and Tapper and Halper and Mueller ...

  • Chris Long on the new NFL anthem rules: ‘This is not patriotism’

    05/24/2018 4:40:54 PM PDT · 36 of 60
    x to RedMonqey
    It's from a Boston paper.

    When he left town, he ceased to exist.

  • Tammy Bruce: Lincoln vs. Obama -- The incredible tale of two libraries

    05/24/2018 4:39:09 PM PDT · 136 of 155
    x to rockrr
    That's because he's making it up as he goes along.

    I guess so. He just slaps it together without much regard for sense or reason.

  • Tammy Bruce: Lincoln vs. Obama -- The incredible tale of two libraries

    05/24/2018 3:28:37 PM PDT · 132 of 155
    x to DiogenesLamp; rockrr
    And No, I don't think the South wanted a weaker United States, they just wanted a United States that would protect their interests, and not make them foot the bill for people in the North who hated them and constantly maligned them.

    I'm talking about 1861. Secessionists already wanted their own country. They wanted out of the US and they wanted the US to be as weak as possible. Whatever they might have wanted years before, is there really any room for argument about that?

    I can think of no circumstances in which more money and profit will not create more economic activity and jobs, and I doubt you can either, but you insist on believing it in the case of the South taking away the European trade from New York.

    There was a relatively efficient economic system going at the time -- whatever one's moral judgment of it. Tear it apart and you don't necessarily get anything better. Thinking you can cut out the "middleman" and automatically grow rich is a mistake. Look at how many countries threw off the rule of foreign imperialists and actually ended up worse economically, and you'll see that your argument here is wrong.

  • Tammy Bruce: Lincoln vs. Obama -- The incredible tale of two libraries

    05/24/2018 3:21:50 PM PDT · 131 of 155
    x to DiogenesLamp; BroJoeK; jmacusa; DoodleDawg
    I don't see any reasonable suggestions as to how that could have worked. The Northern coalition had gotten the government to tax the Southerners for their benefit, and passed other laws to keep them from getting a competitive leg up. The Northerners (especially the wealthy captains of industry) liked the situation they had the South in, and they probably felt the South deserved it because slavery was evil, and so they were doing their part to make the world a better place by getting a big cut of the Wealth that would otherwise go to those slave owners.

    That's nonsense. Southern Democrats had largely controlled Congress before the Civil War. Many plantation owners were rich. That was "the situation the South was in" during the 1840s and 1850s -- at least for the slave owners. The rest is speculation.

    The country had been through a depression (the Panic of 1857) and there was a feeling that a modest increase in the tariff could get industry back and running again. And while debate about slavery was heated in the 1850s, I doubt budding industrialists saw the tariff and trade questions as North vs. South, freedom vs. slavery terms.

    If anybody's paying attention, they'll note how you deny moral values and portray everything in materialistic terms, but in the tariff debate, which largely was based on economics, you want to make it moralistic -- and how you make the anti-slavery moralism that you claim to find there a bad thing.

    What bone could have or would have been thrown to the South? Apart from the financial issues involved, i've read quite a few accounts where people were utterly fed up with being portrayed as the incarnation of evil on the earth, and so they just wanted to tell their moral superiors to go f*** themselves.

    What bone? Plantation owners were doing just fine economically. They weren't being oppressed. They weren't losing out to Yankees.

    And that business about "moral superiors" is wildly exaggerated. You tell us over and over again that Northerners didn't care about slavery. But now you tell us that they despised the plantation owners as morally inferior for owning slaves.

    Aside from the moral complications involved in your view, it should be obvious to anybody who's paying attention that you are no authority on what America was like 150 years ago. You just project your own ideas and resentments about the present back on to the past.

    (Kinda the way we feel about Liberals today preaching their "transgender" this and "girl-power" that.)

    You ought to realize that equating opposition to transgender or feminists agendas with support for slavery weakens whatever case you think you're making about modern-day politics.