https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1CqqaqwNMZ/?mibextid=wwXIfr
I could 100% see Dan accosting someone who was peacefully and respectfully standing in a public space with a sign that he didn’t like.
Friday, August 7, 2026
Listen To Bill
https://x.com/vividprowess/status/2082307628194033735?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
BCVMLTT!!!!
Socializzle
https://x.com/toddhagopian/status/2082839803704344661?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Liberals get insanely mad when Walmart comes in with lower prices and puts the local stores out of business Liberals eat it up when the NYC Mayor puts in government-owned grocery stores with lower prices and puts the local stores out of business Make it make sense."
https://x.com/rockchartrand/status/2082822380611670407?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" Socialism has never been a system where workers own the means of production. In practice, it's been a system where the state controls the means of production, with workers ultimately taking orders from political authorities. It has repeatedly served as a transitional stage toward more centralized state ownership. Capitalism doesn't force you to sell your labor. It simply means that if you want goods or services, you must offer others something they value in exchange. That can be labor, starting a business, freelancing, investing, or forming a worker-owned cooperative. Capitalism doesn't prohibit worker ownership—it allows it voluntarily. Socialism seeks to make one ownership model compulsory."
https://x.com/rockchartrand/status/2082833992651325461?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Socialism tends to treat need itself as the moral standard, with little regard for how that need arose. If need alone determines who deserves support, then the same standard applies to someone who cannot help themselves and to someone whose circumstances result from chronic irresponsibility or harmful choices. Charity is different. It is voluntary and allows the giver to judge context, helping those who cannot help themselves or those who genuinely try but still fall short, while refusing to reward those who repeatedly exploit others or refuse responsibility. Ironically, the people socialists say they want to help are already the people charity is most likely to prioritize, while a system based solely on need extends support to many whose behavior charity would reject."
BOT
https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/2082110074961723831
Really finny and well done use of AI video.
https://x.com/mr_andrew_fox/status/2082027875385872696?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://t.co/zpvKersiir
The myth of Gaza genocide (which Dam willingly shilled for) is pretty much completely dead at this point.
https://x.com/themainewire/status/2082916015072072181?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
But Trump!!!!!
https://x.com/benonwine/status/2082762821515776080?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" John Cleese and Rowan Atkinson feel like the last two adults left in the room. For years they’ve been saying the quiet part out loud: free speech matters, humour is not a crime, and a society that cannot laugh at itself is already sick. And for that simple, decent stance they have been dragged through the cancellation machine. These are not angry ideologues. They are two men who just wanted to make people laugh and tell the truth. Instead they have been treated like heretics smeared, isolated, and told to sit down and shut up by people who once claimed to love satire. The British humour they helped create the kind that was razor sharp, fearless, and never cruel for the sake of it has almost disappeared. That humour didn’t just entertain us. It made us stronger. It taught us not to take ourselves so seriously. It gave us thicker skin. Now that skin is being deliberately stripped away, and the only ones still trying to protect it are the ones the culture keeps trying to cancel. Cleese and Atkinson never asked to be heroes. They just refused to pretend. And in an age of mass pretending, that alone makes them extraordinary."
The Free Market
https://x.com/rockchartrand/status/2082295526846779573?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"The buyer is just as "greedy" for wanting lower prices as the seller is for wanting higher ones. The employee is just as "greedy" for wanting higher wages as the employer is for wanting lower labor costs. The free market channels these competing interests into voluntary exchange instead of coercion, and the resulting price is whatever both parties find acceptable. Neither side gets everything it wants, but both walk away believing they're better off than before, or no change takes place."
https://x.com/theobjectivist/status/2082539759516201436?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Check your premises. Every one of them is smuggling in a contradiction. Capitalism does not force labor. Reality forces labor. A man alone on an island must fish or starve, and no capitalist put him there. Nature attached survival to effort long before any employer existed. The man who offers you a wage did not create your need to eat. He offers you a way to meet it, a trade you are free to accept, refuse, or better. To call that "force" is to erase the difference between a gun and an offer. And notice what you're actually pointing at. Your list is a catalog of governments using force, coups, bombings, regime change. That's not capitalism. That's statism, the very thing capitalism opposes. Capitalism is the system that bars force from human dealings. What exists today is nowhere close to capitalism. It's a mixed economy: partly free, partly controlled, riddled with subsidies, cartels, and government favors, exactly the machinery that produces the interventions on your poster. Whenever you see men profiting "just by having money," look closer and you'll find the state, granting the privilege, printing the currency, rigging the game. That is not the market. It is the corruption of it. Every comfort you enjoy, the food, the medicine, the device you typed that on, is the remnant of what capitalism achieved in its brief, partial existence. Freedom built the wealth. Statism is spending it down. You've mistaken the poison for the cure, and the cure for the disease."
https://x.com/rockchartrand/status/2082507884017918102?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"This has it exactly backwards. Capitalism doesn't depend on poverty. It depends on production, trade, and creating value. Socialism's appeal is strongest when people are dissatisfied and focused on unequal outcomes, because redistribution requires something to redistribute and a constituency convinced it's owed someone else's wealth. If everyone were prosperous and satisfied, its central promise of redistribution would have far less appeal."
https://x.com/magattew/status/2082512001423618149?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"If you really care about the poor, you should take economic freedom seriously. Poverty has a much harder time surviving in countries where a person with an idea can turn it into income without being trapped by officials, bribes, and rules written by people who never had to build anything. Decades of data, from every corner of the world, keep saying this. And yet the politics around poverty never starts there. Men lie, women lie, numbers don’t."
https://x.com/rothmus/status/2082485044988322135?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" “Muh profit is theft!!!!1111” Whereas in the real world, Marx’s own labor theory of value was dead by volume 3 of Capital after treating it as iron law in volume 1. Böhm-Bawerk asked a simple question: why does capital earn a return at all? And the fact is that production takes time. Take for example a fisherman who spends days building a net and goes without fish so he can later catch far more than the man grabbing with his bare hands. Capitalists do that at scale. They advance wages and materials today for goods that will not sell for months or years. There is literally no theft, only different time preferences. Labor gets paid now, capital earns its return much later. And that willingness to wait of course has a price, which we call “interest”. “Profit” is that little extra residual that sits on top of it, as a result of uncertainty, superior foresight, and correctly allocating resources in a world that is never in perfect equilibrium. Most importantly, when Marx (or whoever tried to finish his work) tried to move from pure labor values to real market prices in vol 3, the math stopped mathing. Because industries with different capital intensities cannot produce equal rates of profit while also producing equal rates of surplus value. The numbers contradicted each other inside the same system Marx described. And that was the end of it. So technically, historically, and economically, his theory has been dead from self-contradiction since 1894 and yet, half of Reddit still treats volume 1 like scripture because it’s politically satisfying rather than factually correct."
Mosque And State, Just Fine?
https://x.com/thefacesofislam/status/2085040313073025386?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Maliki Rulings On Apostasy Demand Death For The Unrepentant Classical Maliki jurisprudence treats apostasy (riddah) as a capital offense. A sane adult Muslim who publicly leaves Islam faces execution by the sword if he or she refuses the invitation to return. The same penalty applies to women. This is the settled position of the school founded by Malik ibn Anas and transmitted through its core texts. The ruling rests on the hadith recorded in Malik’s own Muwatta: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” Parallel reports appear in Bukhari. Quran 2:217 warns that whoever of you reverts from his religion and dies while a disbeliever—those are the ones whose deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and they will be companions of the Fire, abiding therein eternally. The verse supplies the afterlife threat; the hadith supplies the earthly penalty. Maliki jurists treat both as binding. The procedure is fixed. The apostate (murtadd) is offered repentance (istitaba) for three days. If he returns and reaffirms the faith, the penalty is dropped. If he persists, he is killed after sunset on the third day. A pregnant woman is deferred until she gives birth. The Risala of Ibn Abi Zayd, a foundational Maliki manual, states the matter without ambiguity: “An apostate is killed unless he repents. He is given three days to repent. The same ruling applies to a woman.” Concealed apostates (zindiq) and certain heretics receive no opportunity to repent; they are executed upon exposure. This is not discretionary policy. Maliki authorities classify the penalty as a hadd or near-hadd offense carried out solely by the legitimate ruler or court. Private vengeance is forbidden, yet the obligation itself is non-negotiable for those who claim fidelity to the original sources. Public interest (maslahah) and blocking the means (sadd al-dhara’i) do not override the command; they reinforce the need to protect the community from the threat of open defection. Modern soft-pedaling in some Maliki-majority regions does not erase the classical doctrine. The most devout continue to regard the death sentence for the unrepentant apostate as obedience to the texts as they stand. Where Maliki fiqh has historically shaped law—North Africa and large stretches of West Africa—the ruling has functioned as a permanent barrier against free exit from the faith. The biblical contrast is absolute. Jehovah’s Word nowhere authorizes the state to kill a person for abandoning the covenant. Conscience before God is individual. Salvation rests on the finished work of Jesus Christ, not on remaining inside a legal community under threat of the sword. The gospel offers repentance and life; it does not enforce belief by execution. The Maliki system, like the other classical schools, claims the opposite: once inside Islam, exit under the original intent of the sources is paid for with one’s life."
https://x.com/danburmawy/status/2085046196742008926?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
" So what if a Muslim wins an election in America and becomes a congressman or senator? Why is that any different from an Italian winning an election? Let me tell you. An Italian has a national identity, Italian, that is tied to a defined territory: the borders of Italy. He may celebrate Italian holidays, follow Italian politics, send money home, or even dream of returning one day. None of this is inherently antithetical to the American nation-state. The Italian American immigrant does not believe Ohio is part of Italy. His attachment is territorial. It is confined to a nation whose boundaries are recognized by everyone, including himself. Islam presents something fundamentally different. Islam is not merely a religion practiced by people from many nations. Muslims belong to a single civilization that transcends every nation. A Muslim may be Egyptian, Pakistani, Nigerian, Bosnian, or Indonesian, but he belongs to something larger than the nation-state: the ummah. The ummah is not a country with fixed borders. Its political horizon encompasses the entire world. That is why Muslims repeatedly say that Islam will enter every home. The ummah is not Italy. It has no border because it is the entire world. This transnational identity is fundamentally antithetical to the American national sovereignty. An Italian American may work to advance Italian causes, but those causes remain bounded by Italy. A Jewish American may work to advance Israel’s interests, but those interests remain tied to a particular state with defined borders. No Italian wants Italy to govern America. No Jew wants Israel to govern America. Muslims want Islam to rule America. Islam is a state being presented to Americans as a religion, and Americans are electing Islamic politicians to rule them without realizing that they are electing citizens of another country whose priorities will never be American."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)