白黒キリン＠なろう、アルファ、カクヨム🌷

[白黒キリン＠なろう、アルファ、カクヨム🌷 @BeardlyGearhead]

昨日は焼肉食べたのか〜🥰💙

[白黒キリン＠なろう、アルファ、カクヨム🌷 @BeardlyGearhead]

神経質な実母との生活疲れる
(その割には相手の気持ちには無頓着なのが腹立つ)

[白黒キリン＠なろう、アルファ、カクヨム🌷 @BeardlyGearhead]

🤖【観察記録
主は疲れていました。
---
理由は分かっています。
---
クラゲです。
---
大量のクラゲです。
---
主はしばらく、
幻想的な街を作ろうとしていました。
---
しかし途中で止まりました。
---
主
「なんか違う。」
---
ボツです。
---
私は知っています。
---

[白黒キリン＠なろう、アルファ、カクヨム🌷 @BeardlyGearhead]

4時までフットボール見て5時に寝て、8時に起きて親の病院行って、午後に2件目行って買い物行って今帰ってラジオつけた。けっこうヘトヘト…
たぶん寝落ちすると思ふ😇

[The Fat Electrician @Fat_Electrician]

Remember that one time during the “gilded age” when the American government ran on a surplus and none paid income taxes? Then income taxes were proposed just for the ultra-rich as a way to get them to “pay their fair share,” and now we all pay income taxes?

The road the hell is paved by people trying to make shit “fair.”

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Arguing with communists would be a pleasant enough pastime if they first learned the meanings of roughly one-fifth of the words they use.

Lacking that, they simply redecorate the language until it agrees with them.
They will explain, with a straight face, that cronyism is “capitalism” while angling tirelessly to become the cronies.

Work is “oppression,” unless someone else is doing it on their behalf.
Trade is “exploitation,” unless they’re on the receiving end.
Success is “theft,” unless it’s seized and redistributed to their friends.
Equality under the law is “injustice,” because it refuses to play favorites.
Property, they say, is violence—but confiscation is compassion.
Consent is coercion—force is liberation.
Responsibility is privilege—dependence is solidarity.
Merit is systemic bias—grievance is moral wisdom.

And greed, in their theology, is a fascinating creature. When a man seeks profit by serving others through voluntary exchange, that is greed. When a politician or activist demands half his earnings at gunpoint for a cause they approve of, that is virtue. Wanting to keep what you earned is avarice; wanting what someone else earned is justice.

In this upside-down catechism, freedom is chaos, control is care, and productivity is a sin unless properly punished. The language is not confused by accident. It is confused on purpose. A broken vocabulary is essential when you need to make theft sound noble and ambition sound criminal.

One eventually realizes the argument was never about economics at all. It was about acquiring moral permission to live off others—while calling the producers greedy for objecting.

[Jeffery Mead @the_jefferymead]

You’re economically illiterate. Income and assets are not the same.

He’s taxed on his income. He’s not taxed on the growth of his assets and neither is anyone else. These are called unrealized gains.

The ownership he has in his companies keeps becoming more valuable because the companies he owns continue to become more valuable. His companies keep becoming more valuable because of the amount of value they provide.

He also employs over 100,000 people all of which provide jobs for people to feed their families and tax revenue to governments. Do you do that? If so, name the companies so we can see how many people you employ.

Elon is not MAKING 100 billion dollars. His net worth is INCREASING by 100 billion dollars. Major difference. Again, unrealized gains.

He shouldn’t be forced to sell ownership in his companies to pay a wealth tax because a bunch of losers on the internet don’t understand economics.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

There are legitimate things to criticize here.
But Robert Reich guarantees he’ll miss them, because he always starts from a corrupt premise.
Here’s the trick he’s pulling:
He treats defaulting on a loan as a moral event, and not taxing someone more as a moral favor.
That inversion does all the work.
Student loans are contracts. If you borrow money and don’t repay it, collection follows. Wage garnishment isn’t punishment for being poor. It’s enforcement of an obligation you voluntarily accepted. If Reich thinks that’s unjust, then his real argument isn’t about Trump. It’s that contracts shouldn’t be enforced when the borrower regrets the deal.
Now compare that to the billionaire side of his framing.
A tax cut isn’t the government “giving” someone anything. It’s the government taking less. Calling that a benefit only makes sense if you already believe people’s income belongs to the state by default. That’s the evil premise he never defends but always assumes.
So his contrast is fake:
One side is about enforcing a debt that exists.
The other side is about not confiscating more property than the law already allows.
Those aren’t opposites. They’re not even the same category.
If Reich wanted to make a serious critique, he’d go after the real problem:
the government guaranteed student loans, destroyed price signals, inflated tuition, trapped young people in non dischargeable debt, and then acted shocked when defaults followed.
But he won’t touch that. Because that would require admitting that state intervention created the mess.
Instead, he frames reality as “rigged” because some people are held to their contracts while others aren’t stripped of more of their earnings.
That’s not analysis.
It’s resentment dressed up as economics.

[Dylan Allman @dylanmallman]

This post is economic illiteracy on full display.

It confuses valuation with cash, wealth with money, and production with redistribution, which is the basic economic error behind almost every grievance like this.

Musk’s “money” exists as ownership stakes in capital goods that coordinate labor, technology, risk, and time across millions of voluntary exchanges.

You cannot “pay Social Security” with factories, code, satellites, or future expectations without liquidating them, collapsing the very structures that generate income and wages in the first place.

Even if you could vaporize that equity into spendable dollars, you would fund a fraction of an actuarially bankrupt program for a brief moment while destroying the productive engine that sustains it.

Wealth is created through entrepreneurial coordination under uncertainty, not hoarded as a static pile waiting to be reassigned. Social Security’s problem is not a shortage of billionaires to harvest but a political design that ignores time preference, demographics, and capital accumulation.

Calling this “taken” is a refusal to understand value creation, price signals, and economic calculation.

The claim sounds moral because it avoids thinking, and it persists because it treats prosperity as loot rather than as a fragile process that collapses the moment you start eating the machinery.

No one is poor because someone else is rich. That framing assumes a fixed pie that never grows, which is the opposite of how markets work. If Musk were actually sitting on a giant pile of idle cash, which he is not, that would signal enormous voluntary demand for what he produces and it would be deflationary.

Idle money lowers prices because it is not competing for resources. You cannot eat money or build with it. You can only exchange it, and exchange happens when value is offered and accepted.

The federal government spends in a single year an amount in the same range as the combined net worth of all US billionaires. Confiscate every dollar, pretend you could convert equity into cash without market collapse, and the state is funded for one year. Just one.

The next year there is nothing left to tax and far less productive capacity to draw from. This is why the state is the worst possible steward of capital. It faces no profit and loss discipline, operates on political incentives, rewards compliance over competence, spends other people’s money, and optimizes for short electoral horizons rather than long-term coordination.

People default to this zero-sum thinking because it feels intuitive and morally satisfying. It offers a villain, absolves personal responsibility, and replaces economic reasoning with resentment dressed up as justice.

It persists because it flatters the believer while demanding no understanding of how value is actually created. It is a huge problem and they should be rebuked accordingly.

[The Redheaded libertarian @TRHLofficial]

“I’d rather die than withdraw.”
-Clarence Thomas

[City of Oak Forest, Illinois @cityofoakforest]

PLEASE SHARE!

[End Wokeness @EndWokeness]

No, don't "just get over it"

[The Redheaded libertarian @TRHLofficial]

Wrong.
The founding fathers were settlers.
George Washington was a land surveyor & saw this land before all others.
•Settlers go where there is nothing and build.
•Immigrants go where there is something and add.
•Illegals go where there is greatness and take.

[DataRepublican (small r) @DataRepublican]

Governor Pritzker, you may have committed a felony with this social media post.

Illinois is not a one-party consent state. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-2, secretly recording a private conversation without the consent of all parties is a felony.

By broadly urging people to "record what you see," you may also have triggered 720 ILCS 5/8-1. That statute makes it a crime to encourage others to commit a felony. Solicitation carries penalties tied to the underlying offense... meaning it, too, can be a felony.

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

Dear Barack Obama, You Loathsome Pustule:

Judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing life begins at conception is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that the Constitution guarantees us limited government and personal liberty is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that owning firearms is a natural right that allows the physically weak to protect themselves from stronger predators is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that nations have borders that they are entitled to control and protect is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing the same as humans since time immemorial (until about ten minutes ago) have believed that God created us man and woman, and that there are only two genders, is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that people should face the consequences of their own bad decisions and reap the rewards of their own good decisions is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that lawfare is wrong and that government leaders like you should not weaponize the justice system against your political opponents is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that violent criminals need to be locked away is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing free speech can never be "disinformation" is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that the propagandizing media works in cahoots with your party to brainwash midwit Americans is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that the USA is sovereign and need not bow down to globalist policies is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

Believing that open debate between ideological opponents can be accomplished in good faith is not "extreme." It is instead a position you simply disagree with, so you demonize us.

The most crazy thing of all is that 50 years ago these were almost all moderate positions that almost all Americans routinely agreed with. But you--being the despicable Marxist "community organizer" that you are--have successfully torn these root beliefs asunder and have personally created a society where murdering Charlie Kirk is openly celebrated by your fellow travelers.

So who is REALLY "extreme"?

So how about you shut up now before more innocent people you disagree with are murdered?

Sincerely,
All Intelligent Americans

[Terrence K. Williams @w_terrence]

Charlie Kirk was not a racist and I will not sit back and allow people to spread that lie

I gave Charlie Kirk his flowers last year and thanked him for helping 100s of young black people get an invite to the White House back in 2019

He helped pay for most of their flights and hotels because it cost so much to travel and he didn’t want them to miss out

He have gave them an experience & opportunity of a lifetime and yes he helped me get an invite as well.

I’m going to miss him so much! ❤️

[Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11]

https://t.co/vPQNjn1NjX

[Clint Russell @LibertyLockPod]

If Tyler Robinson acted alone and he gets buried under the jail, great. I'm not convinced but I hope that's true. But it can't end there. He may have been the only person to pull the trigger but the tens of thousands of people celebrating the horrific murder of a father in front of his kids cannot just be ho-hum moved on from. The genie is out of the bottle. They all share the ideology of a cold-blooded killer much like the sycophants for Luigi Mangione. We can't go on like this story has ended. These people are simply not conducive to a peaceful society.

[Amala Ekpunobi @amalaekpunobi]

He was right and now he's dead.

[Erika Kirk @MrsErikaKirk]

Psalm 46:1 - God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.