RE: The Threat is Real. Can the DOJ Defend DOGE?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
"I know the same can't be said of you..."
Libel ill becomes you. Worse you could hardly more mischaracterize me. I am 100% disabled, but do not take any payments from SSA. I don't get any stamps. I pack 90# bundles of shingles up ladders and roof houses, fix frozen pipes, and give people floors, for free whenever I can. I don't spend a satoshi of Hive, but work for my neighbors for my supper. You just keep your larcenous practices confined to yourself, where you have experience and reasonable expectations of them coming to fruition.
"...throwing punches at me."
I cited actual sources, which is more than you do. I cited sources most likely to support your stream of consciousness gibberish about fiendish plots to expose Americans' PII - but what they said was exactly what you claimed wasn't happening, that crooks have their hands in the US Treasury cookie jar that hasn't denied a request for payment in 22 years.
You're floridly insane, completely off your nut, living in a fantasy world and hypersensitive about fraud at Treasury being discovered, so much so you make a post and ramble about hypothetical people that just might have financial need that justifies fraud stealing from hardworking people that pay taxes. So, it's a pretty anxiety ridden subject for you, and that immediately suggests that along with your ethical laxity about stealing from the more hardworking, there's something else that causes you anxiety about Treasury fraud being discovered, and the typical source of such anxiety is fear of getting caught. Asking an obvious question isn't unreasonable at all, and unlike you casting libelous aspersions, without any basis whatsoever besides your own execrable ethical standards, at me, I only asked you, and gently at that, if there was a reason for your anxiety.
I'm all for DOGE having a go at DARPA, BARDA, and all the covert shops. NSA, DIA, Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, State, DHS. Hell, I'll be grievously wounded and terribly disappointed if all of them aren't gone over with a fine tooth comb at least once, and most of the ones I named repeatedly and often, if not permanently. As an American I don't think anyone that works for me should be keeping any secrets from me, and if any Americans can't be trusted with those secrets, well that's why we have a Second Amendment, and America would be better off without them.
Get a grip on your shit. You're flinging it in all directions uncontrollably, and shitting all over me isn't going to fix what's ailing you. Neither of us likes the Elon or the Donald, and blaming me that some people do is about asinine.
They weren't hypothetical people. Every example I've given I've come to learn from people doing such. If not from outright knowing individuals engaging in these practices who were known to me personally, to having owned a hair salon for ten years having people telling me of their situations, or having heard the people telling me of their relatives situations. Giving examples was easier than saying from each instance of how I come to know of the situations, like one of my ex-boyfriends from years ago had a sister who was slow, mentally off a bit, and met a man one of the same, came to live together, both living off SSI because they were incapable of performing the functions of a job. Really Ralph, your claim of working for supper, under a dictatorial tyrannical regime, both a Thiel and Musk dream, working for your supper will be one and the same considered, a derived benefit that must be claimed. You got something of value in exchange for your work. It currently even is considered as such, as I tried to explain the different examples, if someone living with someone who collects SSI and that person is not reporting that they are living with someone else, they get the full SSI. Now, if the person does make note they are living with someone but paying a said amount of rent and contributions toward bills and groceries, depending upon what those expenses amount to, it may or may not affect their SSI income, on the other hand if that person notes that they are living with another person while collecting SSI but are not being charged anything for living with them, their SSI is reduced by what they call a derived value contributed to them. You, in at todays standards compared to tax laws, not SSI, have to furnish the value of those dinners to the IRS, it's called bartering, and as long as that bartering is below $600 a year, your okay, once it goes over $600 a year, you are required to report it. I know. As a landlord if I pay someone under $600 a year to do work for me, I can deduct that on my taxes without having to furnish the IRS with their name and social security number, once I pay that same individual over $600, I have to furnish the IRS their name and social security number. If I barter that work into 365 chicken dinners, and 200 breakfast, I am way over the $600 mark just by adding a value of $5 each onto the chicken dinners. I would have to get your name and social security number and report it. Now, if I was way under that amount but you made half that six hundred off my dinners and half that off any number of dinners, you would have to report it because it's on you to report any earning in a year over $600. You know Ralph, it's usually the ones accusing others of what it is they are doing themselves. Not that I am saying I agree with how they sat things up, it's just I am not going to jail over chicken dinners. Now that would be considered totally asinine, and I'd probably never live it down once my face was splashed across every website in the country trying to do a chicken run around the tax codes. I can just see the headlines now on a slow news day as each website grabs onto that bit of un-news-unworthiness.
Far as your other claims, the Gateway Pundit, like they are a reliable source of news when it's all one sided. Actually, if this conversation happened over there, you could just tell the mods I wasn't being a team player and have me banned. I know that also, because that's exactly what happened to me over there proving things they were saying concerning Trump weren't exactly being played out as written, there was other points they weren't acknowledging or totally ignoring. Some guy over there used a expletives at me, and I bested his comment back without using any foul language, he got mad and reported my comment. I emailed them and asked them why he was allowed to use language like that but I get banned, they said I was banned for not being a team player. So they run the narratives fed to them. What a lot of this "deleting" funding by Musk concerning ESG, DEI, and other assorted woke-nest, is actually the billionaires who got the funding through the government to run this scam up against people, now they've won, they are pulling out the funding. There's no need to fund it anymore, as Alex Jones has even admitted, they've done beaten you, I am sure I've shared that bit of betrayal to you, fully acknowledged we've all been played, if not let me know, I'll share with you, it's so mockingly impressive, I can't share that "I've told you so" enough. But go ahead and keep dreaming they're benefitting anyone from all these deletions when in fact they are burying evidence. Playing everyone like the dogs they really think we all are. Don't think this is going to come out as being the commander of your own personal little village like you think, you'll be on hunger overload unable to feed them all, eventually hunger will overcome those sexual fantasies and bragging rights you so desire, and all those women will become more worried about feeding their kids instead of if they get chosen for another night with you.
That isn't how these matters are arranged. I do provide work and materials for free out of goodwill as often as I can, and I accept the goodwill and kindness of others, not at all reciprocally, which is the necessary test of a transaction. Helping a friend in need isn't transactional, and having a friend to dinner isn't either.
That isn't what I do, and a mischaracterization of what happens. No barter process is undertaken. I help people when I can. When I am in need I ask for help I need from people I expect can help and are kind enough to me to provide it. There is never a quid pro quo, negotiation of tit for tat, or any transactional process.
A biased source can be 100% reliable when they only report news that is factually correct and serves their bias. Bias is only problematic when it supersedes factual reporting, which you don't even allege.
Well, of course. They're biased. You're a contrarian and anathema to them. What do you expect? They don't have an obligation to listen to reason - only to report facts they prefer to present. That in no way compromises your right to speak freely somewhere besides their platform, which they don't owe you. Neither does their bias in any way compromise their integrity just because it's not the bias you have.
No. They run the narratives they prefer, on their site. They aren't funded by any part of the US government, which is the only entity precluded by the Constitution from censoring you, and that because you are the sovereign it serves, and not the other way round, which is not the case regarding private parties the Constitution is no regulation or restriction of whatsoever.
I don't even disagree. I've long pointed out that the consequence of rank degeneracy prescribed to society is blowback, and this cannot be unknown to fiendishly intelligent oligarchs, so is certainly their goal. That blowback is being directed into a global technocratic totalitarian tyranny, which is a phrase I have specifically used dozens of times over the years I've been predicting this particular backlash.
However, I will point something else out.
Is false. They have succeeded at their plan, and many people will not have seen it coming, and will not bet on the right horse, but I am not many people. I am not surprised nor discomfited by this, as I have long predicted it. I also predict that the laws of physics, being immune to being blackmailed, bribed, or browbeaten into submission, will mandate what technological advance will occur, and nothing billionaires, or even trillionaires, can do can prevent it. Decentralization of the means of production is the cutting edge of tech advance in every field of industry today without exception. From agriculture to transport, from power production to manufacturing, table top, garage, and backyard means of production that individuals are able to own and operate are where increases in productivity are arising today. More, AI that can and will automate these individual means of production are similarly advancing in productivity, as Deepseek being released into the wild as open source demonstrates.
What I have always said and continue to assert is that people that merit their survival and prosperity through this democidal catastrophe will adopt the decentralized means of production suitable to their circumstances, help their neighbors to do the same, and will not be relegated to eating the bugs the overlords seek to reduce us to, will not be deprived of transportation or any of the blessings of civilization they themselves make or trade amongst peers for. By this means the desperate overlords that see independent free people producing wealth for themselves that cannot be parasitized, and eliminates the flow of wealth and power to overlords, will fail to subjugate people of merit, and will ultimately fail to remain overlords solely possessing the wealth of the world, but will be relegated to that state they most despise: mere peers dependent on their own merit for their prosperity and unable to project force to conquer and control free people.
IOW, I am winning, not beaten at all.
Sadly, as I point out, that's but conceit, and not factually correct at all. Humility, as I regularly point out, is the basis for science, and for wisdom, and conceit is it's opposite, the source of hubris, and self-deception. You haven't told me so, but have neglected to hear me say these things over and over, which you can verify by a perusal of my back catalog.
You can say it to others, but you got me fucked up.
You're just deranged and projecting all over me whatever biases you labor under. Keep that drivel to yourself. It's not only actionable libel, it's pretty fucking offensive.
The government has a derived value policy, it's as simple as that. SSI recipients are surprised when they find out that someone who was helping them out to survive, that help was considered worth value, thus their benefits were cut because of the derived value. You can twist it anyway you want, but derived value is exactly what it means.
Again, wrong. If I had had thousands of dollars just laying around, I could have sued them and won. Why? Because of their open policy statement that they are a censorship free platform and that all opinions are respected as long as you follow the their policy rules of behavior. He (the guy who got me banned) didn't follow the rules of their policy. I was following the rules of their policy and I got banned. You can't advertise as being something of which you are not. They are saying you are welcome here if you follow a set of rules, and if following those rules and banning you when you haven't violated the rules, is false entrapment, or advertising. I more than likely couldn't have claimed any financial harms by what they chose to do, but there was harm to my reputation and I likely could have been compensated for that as it inhibited my ability to function on other platforms using Disqus that I wasn't a known user of as my comments went into pending approval, I in essence went from being a trusted user of the Disqus platform to one who couldn't be trusted. For larger platforms, publications, it could take a day or more to get approval, therefore restricted from engaging freely on platforms. Reputational harms is a real thing, and people can sue for it.
This environment that Trump, and his billionaire cronies, has created, is like no other I've experienced over the last ten years or more that I have been blogging. Now, in this next instance, you example would be right. People whom I've blogged alongside of for years turning on you once you no longer align with them politically. People whom you helped fight the battle with, coming up from behind as their reinforcement blindsiding the other side with known facts of truth, that was perfectly okay. Once you decide not to align with them, they stab you in the back over and over again, and ultimately take away your right to post your opinions. The fact I'd been there from the start, the very early start, like three, four people that would include myself, showing up after having watch two individuals birth the site, one who didn't like me having not aligned to his political candidate of choice, the other a staunch defender of my right not to be censored, comes out and straight out lies he has no control over the decision to remove my posting rights. So yeah, in this instance, you are right, there's nothing more left to do than to move on because you simply can't engage with being censored. I could still comment but my right to post my editorial opinion was suspended. Well, your right to decide to let me continue making comments, is now suspended. It works both ways. There's nothing that says I have posting rights to my editorial opinions, but for him to come out and say there was nothing he could do after him having my back for years, from the very essence of the birth of the site, that's just disgusting and isn't worthy of any of my opinions or comments. It wasn't even that I wasn't withstanding an onslaught of ugly, degrading comments myself as he spent defending my rights, buried in angry emails, it was watching the total disintegration of the site revolved into an ugly disrespect for how they started treating those not aligned to themselves and many people leaving as a result over the last four years, I'd had already been contemplating leaving earlier this year but decided his faith in protecting my rights had more value than anything disintegrating anybody else had to provide, that's increasingly becoming rare to find, so I stayed. But really, does it shock me he decided to stab me in the back, not at all, not in this political climate. I've been doing this long enough I can find other places to increase my time spent, and find new avenues to go down if I like.
Although I am 100% disabled, I don't take any, despite I have been awarded it. I cut my benefits 100%.
Your charade at auditing my books is as frail as your grip on sanity. Derived value is limited to quid pro quo. Invitations to dinner, to backyard BBQ's, will not meet that standard, your bloviations notwithstanding. People begging change on the street can make a lot of money at it. More than me. Pity the IRS Agent that drags one into an audit.
Sure. Been there, done that, still lost my house despite applying my mortgage payments for a mortgage I had signed to a mortgage I had never even seen is blatantly illegal. Every ambulance chaser in smelling distance will tell you whatever you want to hear to get you to plunk down a retainer, and then put their kids through college doing battle with Brobdingnagian foes that can throw paper at the courts until you die.
If you initiate a lawsuit while you're paying a mortgage, BTW, the lender can call your note due and immediately payable, because you not only might not win, but might lose a huge judgment against you. Your target can countersue.
You have to have a reputation that's worth a plugged nickel first. Anonymous comments on some Discus blog don't count. There have been all manner of dire threats and vicious abuses posted on this blockchain, and not one suit has come of any of it, to my knowledge, despite millions of dollars being in some of the accounts.
Keep a rational tongue in your cheek. Or even a floridly insane tongue in your cheek, but by Ned's hair quit taking yourself so seriously. I do appreciate you letting up on the libel. Thanks for that grace.
You can never lose an argument. You think I sit around thinking this stuff up but I don't. A person took in a friend after they became disabled. The friend filed for disability. He ended up getting SSI, they deducted $314.00 from his monthly SSI payment of nine hundred some dollars. They said he derived value from her providing him a place and taking care of him. Feeding someone derives value. At least to the government. But keep calling me a liar.
I said if I had thousands laying around, as in enough that I wouldn't have anything better to do with it other than fling it into a chance something might or might not come of it. It wouldn't so much matter that my word means nothing out on a blog platform as it would to help bolster my complaint that they misrepresent themselves to the public, openly, blatantly, of which they cannot do. I don't have thousands laying around with nothing better to do with it, so it's just worthless conjecture for you to assume I'd lose my house over it. I don't have a mortgage either. I have an equity loan but nothing big enough to sweat about as I have good enough credit to switch that over to an unsecured loan if I had to.
You receiving something of value in exchange for something of value, is derived value according to the government. Your argument is like the guy who insist he didn't commit the crime but is guilty as hell. I don't make the rules, nor do I apply them, or agree with them, but, overall, the bigger shock will come when they digitalize everything on an open chain and proceed to ask that person peddling for money on a street corner how it is he spends more money than he gets.
Good point. That's because I'm never wrong.
I didn't. I pointed out I'd lost mine, and explained how.
It depends who he is. If he's the right beggar, they'll never ask.
I think Catherine Austin Fitts said it best the other night in a video. "You can't go off and barter when they have Space X and Starlink going off above your head and they're targeting your head with electronic weapons. That takes real imagination. Elon Musk who seems to be so popular right now, wants to put a mesh network in the back of your head and hook you up to a satellite. Why is anyone in American wanting to listen to someone who want to do that."
She's more intelligent than I could even assume to be, yet she's not to far off from where several months ago, when Musk was seeking to purchase twitter, someone wrote similarly what he was really after. That was to get into the algorithms behind twitter that kept people who post on twitter identifies hidden. His goal, it was said, was to put enough satellites up where he could track any tweet from anywhere in the world within five minutes. Something the experts said was statistically impossible to accomplish. Catherine's at the point Musk will just give you a good old zap to the head no matter what corner your sitting on taking up money from passerby's. You don't get those forms filled out, he'll just zap you from the earth. Now if I'd said that, you'd be ripping two ways to Sunday on me. I've was just figuring he'd send you a reminder tweet.
Though it's obvious that someone like Catherine, who has never really cared much about what she tells on the government(s), shows how much the world has become afraid of Trump, when speaking on the missing trillions, at the end of the video, she said something along the lines of let's just hope Trump can get it figured out. That is so laughable, a man who was living off the borrowed dime off his assets, his family now, after only four years of holding office, multi billionaires in hard cash. You know she isn't really that gullible.
No I wouldn't. I'm right there with you, in fact. Otherwise I'd be ripping on your right now.
Yes. But hope springs eternal. Humanity cannot help but hope for whatever can enable them to persist through whatever challenge we face. ~64k Starlink satellites surveilling us, tanks rolling into our village, sabertooths leaping from cover, whatever we face we envision means of surmounting it. This is a key capacity that has resulted in our survival, because we're not always wrong.