Amazon.com: Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic eBook : Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, HQ, Classics: Kindle Store
Disclaimer: I’m not your Supervisor. These are my opinions after reading through these books a few times.
Picking up where I left off with Seneca’s letters to his friend and student, Lucilius Junior, an official in Sicily.
I am copying a part of the letter in italics and then responding in normal text.
ON THE PROPER STYLE FOR A PHILOSOPHER’S DISCOURSE
Thank you for writing so often. By doing so you give me a glimpse of yourself in the only way you can. I never get a letter from you without instantly feeling we’re together. If pictures of absent friends are a source of pleasure to us, refreshing the memory and relieving the sense of void with a solace however insubstantial and unreal, how much more so are letters, which carry marks and signs of the absent friend that are real. For the handwriting of a friend affords us what is so delightful about seeing
him again, the sense of recognition.
This is something we have lost today. I text my wife when I am out of town, but it’s not the same as when I used to write her letters while we were dating. Sometimes she will flip through them and remind me of how we were back then. I am thinking about writing her a letter now as a surprise while I am out of town next week.
You say in your letter that you went and heard the philosopher Serapio when his ship put in where you are. ‘His words,’ you say, ‘tend to be tumbled out at a tremendous pace, pounded and driven along rather than poured out, for they come in a volume no one voice could cope with.’ I do not approve of this in a philosopher, whose delivery – like his life – should be well-ordered; nothing can be well-regulated if it is done in a breakneck hurry. That is why in Homer the impetuous type of eloquence which he compares to snow that keeps on coming down without a break, is given to the orator, while from the old man there comes a gentle eloquence that ‘flowed sweeter than honey’.* You should take the view,
then, that this copious and impetuous energy in a speaker is better suited to a hawker than to someone who deals with a subject of serious importance and is also a teacher.
Like Seneca, I do not like to listen to people that try to overwhelm the audience with the sheer amount of words they use. If someone is speaking like that, my first impression is that they do not have a serious grounding in what they are talking about and are trying to mask that fact. I think of the way Thomas Sowell speaks compared to Jesse Jackson.
Yet I am just as much against his words coming in a trickle as in a stream. He should not keep people’s ears on the stretch any more than he should swamp them. For the other extreme of thinness and poverty means less attentiveness on the part of the listener as he becomes tired of this slowness with all its interruptions. Nonetheless what is waited for does sink in more readily than what goes flying past; one speaks in any event of instruction as being handed on to those being taught, and something that escapes them is hardly being handed on.
If you talk too slowly, there is a risk of losing people’s attention completely. If I am constantly stuttering or saying “umm” or “ahh” it seems like I don’t know what I am talking about, so I have to delay so my brain can keep up. For this compare Karine Jean-Pierre to Kayleigh McEnany or even Jen Psaki.
Language, moreover, which devotes its attention to truth ought to be plain and unadorned. This popular style has nothing to do with truth. Its object is to sway a mass audience, to carry away unpracticed ears by the force of its onslaught. It never submits itself to detailed discussion, is just wafted away. Besides, how can a thing possibly govern others when it cannot be governed itself? And apart from all this surely language which is directed to the healing of men’s minds needs to penetrate into one? Medicines do no good unless they stop some length of time in one.
I try to speak in simple terms, and not be overly verbose. I also prefer to listen or read a similar style. When I hear or read a “word salad”, I try to decipher it, and usually it is nonsense. A simple and direct manner that doesn’t seem to be trying to confuse the audience works much better for me. If the language is too diluted the meaning might not be absorbed.
There is, moreover, a great deal of futility and emptiness about this style of speaking, which has more noise about it than effectiveness. There are my terrors to be quieted, incitements to be quelled, illusions to be dispelled, extravagance to be checked, greed to be reprimanded: which of these things can be done in a hurry? What doctor can heal patients merely in passing? One might add, too, that there is not even any pleasure to be found in such a noisy promiscuous torrent of words.
Anyone who has seen the “debate”:
Can anyone actually explain what the actual argument is? She claims they did a ton of research, but I don’t hear any logic in there. Although to be fair, the other team wasn’t any better. My brain hurt from watching that again. Worse are the protestors that shout down speakers or bark at them.
Just as with a lot of things that one would never believe possible one finds it quite enough to
have seen them once proved possible, so with these performers with words, to have heard them once is more than enough. What is there in them, after all, that anyone could want to learn or imitate? What view is one likely to take of the state of a person’s mind when his speech is wild and incoherent and knows no restraint?
One thing that occurs to me as I read history is that human nature is still as it ever was. Apparently even ancient Rome had a problem with word salads and obnoxious behavior masquerading as debate. Almost every day on Glibs, either in the links or in the comments, someone will post an indecipherable article. I know the ones who write these are highly educated, but they don’t seem to be deep thinkers.
This rapidity of utterance recalls a person running down a slope and unable to stop where he meant to, being carried on instead a lot farther than he intended, at the mercy of his body’s momentum; it is out of
control, and unbecoming to philosophy, which should be placing her words, not throwing them around, and moving forward step by step. ‘But surely she can move on to a higher plane now and then as well?’
Certainly, but it must be without prejudice to her dignity of character, and this vehement, excessive energy strips her of that. Power she should have, great power, but it should be controlled: she should be a never failing stream, not a spate. Even in an advocate I should be loath to allow such uncontrollable speed in delivery, all in an unruly rush; how could a judge (who is not uncommonly, too, inexperienced and unqualified) be expected to keep up with it? Even on the occasions when an advocate is carried away by an ungovernable passion or a desire to display his powers, he should not increase his pace and pile on the words beyond the capacity of the ear.
If I am trying to explain something, whether it is philosophy or even how to do something, drowning my listener in words will not achieve what I would like. It would probably have the opposite effect and make them more likely to tune me out and less likely to ask me anything in the future. Although I am not a big talker, it is easy for me to get carried away when it is a subject I am knowledgeable and passionate about.
You will be doing the right thing, therefore, if you do not go to listen to people who are more concerned about the quantity than the quality of what they say, and choose yourself – if you have to – to speak in the manner of Publius Vinicius. When Asellius was asked how Vinicius spoke, he described it as being. ‘at a slow pace’. Geminus Varius in fact remarked, ‘How you can call the man eloquent I simply don’t know – he can’t string three words together.’ Is there any reason why of the two you should not choose Vinicius’ style? You can expect to be interrupted by persons with as little taste as the one who, when Vinicius was jerking the words out one by one, as if he were dictating rather than speaking, exclaimed, ‘I call on the speaker to speak.’ The pace of Quintus Haterius, a celebrated speaker of his day, is something I should have a sensible man keep well clear of: with him there was never a hesitation or a pause, only one start and only one stop.
It is easy to impress others by speaking nonsense. If the delivery is rapid and smooth, it seems most people will think you’re saying something impressive. For an example, look to all the ones that believe Barack Obama to be a “great orator”. I was never impressed with him, although admittedly he loses points right off the bat for being a politician. My mother swears he is the best speaker she has ever heard. I don’t know that I have a person I admire for their ability to give a speech. I would rather listen to a debate or someone speaking off the cuff.
But I also think that certain styles are suitable in a greater or lesser degree to different nationalities. In a Greek one will tolerate this lack of discipline, while we have acquired the habit of punctuating what we say, in writing as well as speech. Our own Cicero, too, from whom Roman oratory really sprang, was a steady goer. Roman discourse is more given to self-examination, appraising itself and inviting appraisal. Fabianus, who added outstanding oratory to those more important distinctions of his way of life and his learning, would discuss a subject with dispatch rather than with haste. You might describe his oratory as being not rapid but fluent.
Seneca seemed to believe the Roman method of oratory was more measured and the Greeks tended to be more free flowing and less introspective. Cicero was famous for being a great orator of his day nd a strong advocate of the Roman Republic.
This I am ready to see in a philosopher, but I do not insist on it; his delivery is not to be halting, but I should rather have the words issued forth than flowing forth. And a further reason I have for warning you against that disease is the fact that you can only acquire it successfully if you cease to feel any sense of shame. You really need to give the skin of your face a good rub and then not listen to yourself! For that unguarded pace will give rise to a lot of expressions of which you would otherwise be critical. You cannot, I repeat, successfully acquire it and preserve your modesty at the same time. One needs, moreover, constant daily practice for it. It requires a switch of attention, too, from subject-matter to words. And even if it does transpire that the words come readily to the tongue and are capable of reeling off it without any effort on your part, they will still need to be regulated. A way of speaking which is restrained, not bold, suits a wise man in the same way as an unassuming sort of walk does. The upshot, then, of what I have to say is this: I am telling you to be a slow-speaking person.
It is more important to know what I am talking about than it is to use a great quantity of words to say it.I agree that the person that talks a long time and says nothing must either have no self awareness or no shame. That was one thing I always liked about Ron Paul and to a lesser extent, Rand Paul. Even when he knew the person asking the question and maybe even the majority of the audience would strongly disagree, he answered the question without dodging or answering a different question than had been asked.
Reminder: I will be in Richmond for lunch on April 1st, there is a meetup post in the forum about it.
Music this week is The Galactic Cowboys. I know I featured them a few weeks ago, but at that time I found a new to me song that sounded like the old stuff I love.
I bought this CD and it was on repeat until the Winery Dogs latest came out.
If you like their first 2 albums, A Long Way Back to the Moon is excellent. It has the original 4 members and they still rock.They have the heaviness and harmonies, with their usual bit of goofiness.
I wish I had known about it when it came out in 2017, I probably missed a chance to see them in concert.
The guitar in this one kicks:
This one is kind of funny, but a little serious:
This one might be a little autobiographical:
“Can anyone actually explain what the actual argument is? She claims they did a ton of research, but I don’t hear any logic in there. Although to be fair, the other team wasn’t any better. My brain hurt from watching that again”
If there is any logic in there I think it can be distilled down to “STFU, Whitey”……..which incidentally is pretty much the bottom line of CRT once you cut through the academic bloviating and esoteric jargon.
I don’t have the opportunity to listen to the debate video, but my wild guess is that it is a rapid-fire buzzword bingo. I’ve seen a style of “debate” where they don’t articulate a point but spew articles of faith at the most rapid pace they can manage, and I assume they think scoring enough points on the square means they won the argument that never took place.
You are correct.
It falls under everything is stupid.
They also interviewed the winners.
They were so proud of the research they did and how it was a “historic” achievement.
Whats very disconcerting to me is that it seems that appeal to authority, any authority (except maybe the Bible) is increasingly considered a valid debate tactic in journalism and academia.
And “doing your own research” is now considered an insult.
And “dangerous”
SMDH
Pack an envelope, paper, and a stamp and write that letter.
Solid advice, I think I will.
“One thing that occurs to me as I read history is that human nature is still as it ever was. Apparently even ancient Rome had a problem with word salads and obnoxious behavior masquerading as debate. Almost every day on Glibs, either in the links or in the comments, someone will post an indecipherable article. I know the ones who write these are highly educated, but they don’t seem to be deep thinkers.”
I often think about the greatness of Cato the Younger and how utterly frustrating his life must have been in light of what the politics of Rome had become and what passed for a statesman in those days. And I wonder how we measure up.
And most recently on my mind, how Rome didn’t need better statesman, it needed better Romans.
How does Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell compare to Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, Daniel Webster…?
We have very few left with class, honor, and intellect. Thomas Massie and Rand Paul come to mind. It’s the natural decay of empires.
Yep. I honestly feel myself being pulled back towards Conservatism in many ways. Madison, et al were the result, not the cause, of an honest, industrious, moral population. Politics is downstream of culture. Schiff et al are the products of moral decay, not the cause. Massie and Paul are very much analogous to Cato. I truly hope they meet a better end than he did.
You can be a libertarian and still believe in a strong moral compass. Part of what turned me off over the years from libertarianism was the whole “ass, grass or gas” mentality that took over and lasted through Gary’s presidential run. It was reflected in the cheapening of TOS too. “With great power comes great responsibility” is how it should be, Reminding people of the responsibility part is not so much conservative as it is remembering human nature.
Responsibility is a hard sell. Deep down inside, people who are industrious and who work hard know they’re the chumps, the irrational actors. That’s okay. They have their own soul to fulfill. When you come right down to it, people who work hard and are industrious who make something of themselves do it because they’re compelled. But envious people who do not want to work are rewarded by … not having to work.
*sigh
So true. The rewards for slackers must end at some point. Meanwhile I work for my family and my own satisfaction.
work or die
the only sustainable solution
I argue much the same. Sure, I want drugs, hookers and gambling to be legal; but I still think they can lead to poor outcomes and should be cautioned against.
Moderation is key: Only one hooker filled drug binge per year for me.
Conflation of libertarianism with libertinism.
(Not you BB)
If that’s a debate I’m a little disappointed. If I wanted to hear that noise I’d never have divorced my ex. I only got in a few seconds but that was enough.
I figure it compares with Thomas Sowell getting grilled by Biden about affirmative action.
Biden was hopelessly outclassed but lacked the ability to realize it.
As did most Democrats I’m guessing
She claims they did a ton of research, but I don’t hear any logic in there.
Like today’s political and market research? Nothing to do with logic or what is best for you, your family, or community. Just there to find the spin or catch-phrase that will hook somebody not really paying attention.
There has been some research on this. Many people have outsourced their thinking to their political party. It’s no longer, “how do I feel about this”, it’s “how does my political party feel about this”.
People have always done this. It’s easier for them and they get the safety of the herd.
Well, that really is the whole point of representative government.
Government lawyers can’t read.
After a Wapiti man sued the federal government for the right to build his own machine gun, the federal government Monday said the Second Amendment doesn’t allow citizens to own machine guns.
Jake Stanley DeWilde in January sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF), saying the government wrongfully denied his application to build his own M16 machine gun and a federal ban on such weapons is unconstitutional.
The federal government in its Monday filing says that courts have consistently ruled that the Second Amendment protects weapons in “common use” but does not protect “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has specifically singled out M16 rifles as dangerous and unusual, the counterclaim says.
The high court in 2008 contemplated another pro-gun argument: that weapons such as the M16, which are used in the military, should be allowed to citizens because the Second Amendment says people should keep “a well-regulated militia.”
“But the Court rebuffed this objection,” reads the federal government’s filing, “explaining that ‘the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.’”
Curiously these weapons were the same kind issued to the regular soldiers.
A proper ruling would declare both the NFA and the ATF as unconsititional, and that in order to fullfil their role as the militia, the citizens must have access to all weapons of war without interference by the state.
And oddly enough, Miller posited that a weapon had to have military utlity to be protected by the second amendment.
Miller is bad law, especially since Miller died before it could be finished being litigated (post-remand, it was coming back towards the court again)
Yeah, it’s terrible law, not the least because the court ignored the fact that short-barreled shotguns were used extensively by the military in the trenches during WWI. But it’s fun to see the anti-gunners try to reconcile the Miller ruling (only military arms are protected) with their idea that the second amendment doesn’t mean military weapons.
Yes, the founders who were familiar with both privately owned cannons and warships, wrote 2A to be limited to squirrel guns.
The squirrels are the biggest threat.
Circular argument is circular. The 2A protects lawful weapons. The government says this weapon isn’t lawful, Therefor, the 2A doesn’t protect this weapon.
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Truer every day.
In order to raise the retirement age by two years.
https://twitter.com/magdishalash/status/1636395052925681670
This should be entertaining.
If that power exists, why have a legislature?
To keep what happened when Macron invoked it from happening?
The government needs to have the façade of being accountable to the people.
This has not proven true for much of history. It merely needs a mechanism to keep them in line. Whether it be placation or fear, or an illusion.
Interesting what will get people out in the streets. I thought the prospect of not being able to heat your home in winter would have done it.
Nothing energizes the French like the prospect of being lazy.
“I’m sure the government will fix that before I have to worry”
/average 21st century thinking
The Average Low temperatures in Paris in winter are still above freezing. Europe is warmer than it has rights to be thanks to the gulf stream.
Which is why European colonists were woefully unprepared for winter on the east coast of America.
Yes + Little Ice Age.
“But the Court rebuffed this objection,” reads the federal government’s filing, “explaining that ‘the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.’”
That made me dizzy.
Worse are the protestors that shout down speakers or bark at them.
As in, “Arfarfarf!”?
*Not gonna watch it.
Yes, they were making dog noises whenever someone was trying to make a point they didn’t agree with.
Then they acted like they had really done something when he gave up.
You know who isn’t stoic?
ZeroHedge
The blackpilled bitchfest over there this week is intolerable. They’re absolutely dedicated to the constantly imminent apocalypse. The Fed stuck a knife in the ECB this week and like a bunch of autistic morons, they’re creating an argument for an end to QT, which would bail out the European banks at our expense.
Luongo gets it though. Thank God he and Danielle DeMartino Booth are around to offset the hair on fire crowd.
https://twitter.com/TFL1728/status/1636772214237282304
I guess it’s a case of bad guy crushes worse bad guy. If this ends up with the Davos crowd flogged in the streets I won’t be upset.
That’s exactly it. We’re not getting our hard currency anytime soon, but if the dollar fails right now, we will get the worst of all the options.
They can’t let go of the DOOM long enough to see that this was a step in the right direction.
And the FedNow/CBDC panic is just stupid.
I don’t like the idea of Europe going through a 1930’s style Great Depression but if I’m completely honest; better them than me.
The ECB was intent on getting the Fed to bail them out yet again by returning to QE. Powell is basically saying “Fuck no, we’re protecting our banks and our banks only.”
We’re in the last man standing phase of competing Ponzi’s.
What I’d like to know is where the US power brokers on the Left stand in this. It sure seems like they were all on board for the old European powers to run our lives in a Feudal Technocracy just a few months back.
They’ve been trying to take Powell out for a while. Lael Brainard in particular is a real piece of work.
Remember the Fed insider trading scheme from a year ago? Brainard was the Fed’s compliance officer who approved all the trades. Apparently she was also the one who leaked the trades to the press to start a scandal. It’s not a coincidence that all of the accused were Powell supporters and Powell himself.
And Yellen is a straight up commie. She’s been working tirelessly to spend money in order to force the Fed to monetize the debt, which benefits the offshore dollar market and props up the ECB. I’ve begun looking at COVID in a whole new light since it forced the Fed to monetize about $7T in spending. Ditto on the push to get us into a war.
Once the ECB falls, I’ll bet that a lot of the impetus for warmongering tapers off.
thats all new info to me. Who’d have thought I’d ever be rooting for the Fed Chairman??
A little too ironic.
I stopped reading ZeroHedge in 2009. I couldn’t take living in such fear constantly.
It is a bit much. I still go out to it. But I like to fortify my tinfoil hat.
Can anyone actually explain what the actual argument is?
I remember this from awhile back. They basically spew a bunch of racially charged word salad and fail to address the actual debate topic even once.
What is the official stoic position on irish whisky tasting on st pat’s day?
Cheers glibbies
https://photos.app.goo.gl/pNrdyCtJUcjkZgT66
If you can taste it, you’re too sober to drink it.
Proper tasting technique
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPKdHP8zWuo
I approve. We went to this place in Dublin. I would recommend to spend the extra cabbage for the higher end samples.
https://www.irishwhiskeymuseum.ie/
This is where my wife learned the Irish Coffee making technique.
I’ll be having some Redbreast 15 tonight or likely tomorrow night. Possibly some Paddy’s in between.
I picked up a bottle of Tullamore Dew for Irish coffee, and a bottle of GlenDronach for something I actually like to drink. Hopefully they won’t fight.
TD is passable but bland.
Speaking of recycled all purpose racialist word salad…
The google nooz directed me to a “conversation” piece (a reliable trove of lefty nonsense) about Texas taking over the Houston school district.
tl;dr- Public schools have always fought the good fight against systemic racism, and white folks hate that.
Yah, that’s what I thought, too.
I think that’s in the public school mission statement.
Yes that is why black people hate school choice
One needs, moreover, constant daily practice for it. It requires a switch of attention, too, from subject-matter to words. And even if it does transpire that the words come readily to the tongue and are capable of reeling off it without any effort on your part, they will still need to be regulated.
I have had to give some presentations lately and it’s amazing how how difficult it is to shift gears from electronic communication to speaking. I tend to forget how much time I spend communicating with a keyboard. My strategy now is to make calls before the presentation – kinda get the flow and rhythm right. Seneca is right. Practice.
Thanks, Ron! And write the letter!
Music to write by.
My son is in what used to be called “reform school,” where he is doing quite well (he’d do better if he’d just stop talking all the time). I write him a letter every week, and sometimes he writes me letters back. His writing has improved dramatically. They’re usually things I’d write in my journal anyway, so I keep copies of the letters I write and stick them in there. It’s much easier for me to express myself in writing than trying to form words from the pictures in my head, just on the fly. I like it. I send him funny memes, write maxims and truisms and suchlike in the margins, and now he knows quite a bit about stoic philosophy. I wish I could send him A Man in Full by Tom Wolfe (my intro to stoicism), but it’s not on the approved list. I’m not sure he’d understand it anyway. I sent him a Tumblr joke about Ajax dishwashing liquid, but he didn’t get it.
I’m not sure A Man In Fullwould interest a young man.
I read it and while the author is a very good writer, I remember the towing situation vividly, there were a lot of soap opera type happenings, and I only liked the one guy that got his car towed.
Of course, I don’t know your son, so my opinion is meaningless, but I would recommend Meditations as a good intro.
They’ve been trying to take Powell out for a while.
They (whoever that is- the MMT mob?) had their chance when his term expired.
BEWARE!
The follow-on effects reverberating throughout the global tech ecosystem risks creating a fire sale environment. Even with SVB deposits guaranteed, the dominant banking partner of the American tech ecosystem has vanished overnight, with no immediate alternative; founders will continue to scramble to make payroll and fund managers may be on the lookout for more stable partners and sources of capital in a new, less-certain “normal.” As such, this moment risks granting China a strategic opportunity. HSBC’s acquisition of SVB’s UK subsidiary underscores as much. That bank’s top shareholder is China’s State-backed Ping’An Insurance.
The U.S. should be wary of China sweeping into the vacuum, or foothold, created by SVB’s collapse — or that of any other key player in the U.S. tech ecosystem. But if history is any guide, Beijing will try to do just that. And those efforts, if successful, will feed directly into China’s military modernization program and tech-enabled surveillance state.
Right now, there aren’t enough barriers to prevent China from doing so. Yes, foreign investment review exists; in theory, U.S. regulations (read: CFIUS) can be activated to prevent China from acquiring strategic and sensitive U.S. technologies and positions.
But U.S. investment review has enormous loopholes, including a focus on direct acquisitions and “controlling” investment stakes. Investment review does not apply to limited partnership stakes in U.S. funds. No regulations restrict Chinese entities from investing in banks or as LPs in funds that, in turn, invest in strategic and sensitive technologies. So, even if China can’t acquire U.S. innovation directly through an operating company, it can back players that do and gain access to and influence over core technology all the same.
What does all of this mean?
First, if SVB is going to dominate the conversation in the weeks ahead, that conversation should include China and the risk that it takes advantage of this American crisis. Beware of vultures at the gates.
The Yellow Peril is coming to get us.
I’m more worried about this contagion spreading and resulting in a nationalization of the banking sector than the wiley commies sneaking in.
We need our own Great Wall, to keep the barbarians out.
I’m off to spy on people. I bought some Irish Ale to have tonight after work. Hopefully there will still be some people on the zooms to pair with drinking.
Quickly before I go, some music for the day.
I might. Tomorrow’ I head back to Texas. If I can get packing done I will show up.
Not directly the topic of this Stoic Friday, but I want to thank you for doing these.
We had to put down our cat, Bear a few weeks ago. He was 15 and had made it nearly a year with kidney failure. The stoics philosophy on grief, particularly Seneca, were of great comfort to me. And allowed me to be of comfort to my wife who felt the loss more sharply than I did, having been the one taking care of Bear by giving him his fluids every few days, making sure he was eating, etc. These series of posts have had me reading the stoics again, re-evaluating them as a man nearing 50 in a different light than I did as a young man barely passed being a boy in my 20s.
So, thank you, Ron and all the glibs who’ve commented and provided your insights.
I’m really sorry, CA. No matter how tough we think we are, losing a pet puts us in our place.
All my best to you and the missus.
That is the truth, brother. Thank you.
And thanks, DEG.
Sorry about your cat.
Sorry to hear, pets are a treasure.
*grabs popcorn*
Hunter Biden on Friday escalated his legal war with the former computer repair shop owner who came into possession of his now-infamous laptop, with a countersuit that claims his privacy was invaded — and which threatens to put all his sordid drug binging, sexcapades and shady foreign business deals right back into the spotlight.
In the countersuit, filed in US District Court in Delaware first thing Friday, the first son alleged John Paul Mac Isaac had no legal right to copy and disseminate the contents of the laptop that was abandoned at his Delaware store in 2019.
The 42-page filing, which was lodged in response to a long-running defamation suit filed by Mac Isaac against Hunter and others, also accuses the repair shop owner of helping to distribute the laptop’s contents for political gain just weeks before the 2020 election.
Hunter’s aggressive move comes as House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) forges ahead with a probe into the first son and his family’s foreign business dealings.
“That’s a bold strategy, Cotton.”
Hey Hunter if you’re having trouble grasping what “abandoned” means, look at how you’re treating your daughter.
Gee, I wonder why I might have anger issues these days.
Especially:
I know there won’t be (because accountability is dead, two legal systems, etc.) — but there should be some gorram consequences for knowingly going with unconstitutional behavior, and they should be at every gorram level that did this shit. The only way to stop it is to make it much too painful when they get caught, and I mean they should damned well fear the hellfire coming their way if they try anything like this (so we should be talking loss of pension and major prison time at a minimum here).
You have to destroy the truth to save it, just what I’d expect from a Pentagon affiliate.
It’s always nice when they tell you exactly what they think of you.
It is easy to impress others by speaking nonsense. If the delivery is rapid and smooth, it seems most people will think you’re saying something impressive. For an example, look to all the ones that believe Barack Obama to be a “great orator”.
🙂
Yellin can’t be this stupid, can she?
How does this not torpedo small banks?
That’s a rhetorical question, right?
*tinfoil hat crinkles a metallic “yes”
Yellen wants the Fed to go back to QE. She will actively try to sabotage the program Powell put in place in order to do so.
It’s all kabuki theater.
The retardation in the comments. “Big banks aren’t being bailed out, their customers are”.
Yeah, and taxes on business aren’t taxes on consumers, either.
holy fuck
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAaaaaa….
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/blackrock-ceo-fink-oil-gas-vital-meeting-energy-needs
Guess who sees the writing on the wall?
At some point, no matter how rich they are, ESG supporters are going to want a financial return on their money.
Knee cap everyone else.
How does this not torpedo small banks?
The banking sector will never be truly efficient until all the small banks have either been destroyed or subsumed by the Favored Five.
Professor St Onge answered my question.
I’m not a Jimmy Dore fan, but this is excellent.
Fawning over politicians is pathetic and sad.
Yellen wants the Fed to go back to QE.
I have decided we are watching a competition between the Bidenites and the EU to see who can attain completely unconstrained power first.
‘John Wick’ star Lance Reddick has died.
https://twitter.com/TMZ/status/1636802153296560155
Damn. He was a great actor. That stentorian voice of his was bad ass and he knew how to use it.
🙁
This seems like cruel and unusual punishment just for losing a game.
Truly feel bad for these guys. They lost the game and then had to be subjected to this speech.
https://twitter.com/ClownWorld_/status/1636685820701859843/photo/1
LOL
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1636456248768880640
New Version Of ‘Operation’ Just Has Players Use Essential Oils Instead Of Performing A Medical Procedure
“For instance, if the patient has a collapsed lung, conventional Operation wisdom would be to operate,” said a Hasbro rep demoing the game in a video on YouTube. “But this is just propaganda from Big Pharma. All that collapsed lung needs is a little frankincense, and Cavity Sam is good to go.”
Damn. I should sue the surgeons who put me through unneeded trauma 40 years ago. Frankincense would have been so much easier.