Posts Made By: James Lacey

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I wonder what the "secret" is?

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/08/us/trump-news

Well, this is gross and disturbing on many levels. And it's pretty much as described before it was released. I'm sure Trump and his supporters are already trying to spin it as a fake; it's not his signature, etc. But we can clearly throw this onto the massive pile of documented evidence that supports allegations of sexual misconduct by Donald Trump.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Think I'm also going to digitally scan everything and save it all to a thumb drive to be able to share it with the rest of the family. I'm retired and it'll give me something fun to do this winter while waiting for next season.

I have several projects like this that I need to complete, but I still haven't found the time. I plan on putting everything in the cloud; either Google Photos or Dropbox, I think. I still need to dive in and figure out what's best.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Question: Which president has the longest consecutive win streak in SCOTUS decisions? Think hard, I know it's a real toughie! If you took a wild guess and said Donald John Trump, you win a cookie because you're right! Who could be more deserving than him?...

Part of the reason for this, though, is that a) Trump loves doing controversial and provocative stuff. We could have a whole discussion about his style in this regard. Still, the point is, the more you act the way Trump does, the more often you are going to be challenged in court, and b) Trump and his cohorts are purposely pushing the envelope regarding executive power and authority, and using the court system to do it. So, yes, Trump has the longest consecutive win streak, but he has the longest streak of court cases going to the SCOTUS in general. He probably has the longest consecutive losing streak, too.

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

Let me through in a completely random thought under a brilliant (and I mean that) post title:

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that we’ve become an unserious people. We are living through one of the greatest societal shifts in history—the rise of AI and robotics—an upheaval rivaling the industrial revolution. Yet instead of treating this moment with the gravity it deserves, we act as though we’re on holiday. The future of nations will be determined by who best harnesses these technologies, but our own is distracted by what feels like a government-run reality show.

Had this generation been in charge during the 1960s, we might never have won the space race. And while America has long led the West through times of transformation, there is no guarantee we will do so again. A world deprived of U.S. leadership—undermined by superficiality and ignorance—would be a poorer, more precarious place.

I think the US is leading in some areas, but of course, we do have some serious gaps where we are lagging, such as a national strategy for how to adopt, use, and regulate these technologies to our best advantage in an ethical way. All we need is a common enemy (the USSR) and a national martyr (JFK) like we did during the space race, and I bet we could get our act together.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

So once again after Lying previously about the job numbers that Joe Biden claimed, when it was found that over 800,000 FEWER jobs were created by the Biden Administration compared to their lies, we now find out that an additional 911,000 FEWER jobs were created under the 4 year term of Joe Biden.

I realize it will do absolutely no good to try to deflate your right-wing outrage and bluster, since the right-wing media always gets you spun up, but here goes anyway.

Early job numbers are always estimates from surveys. The BLS does a benchmark revision every year against payroll tax records. Downward revisions occur frequently, and in 2024, the downward revision was similar. And while 911,000 jobs sounds like a lot, it's a tiny percentage of our overall workforce of over 150 million workers. For example, total job growth under Biden was approximately 16 million jobs added or roughly an 11.3% increase. Biden had no months with net job losses, which is rather unique among Presidents. The bottom line is that job growth under Biden was solid despite the revisions, which are a tiny percentage of our overall workforce.

However, I'm sure Trump and his lackeys will seize upon this entirely routine and inconsequential revision to justify the firing of the former head of the BLS and put a Heritage Foundation loyalist in charge.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Here we go again. Yeah, the Charlie Kirk assassination is a big deal and deserves a thread, but what is with the endless threads he starts that mostly go unread? Does it give him sense of, well, what? Does he think we'll stop mocking him? LOL

It's his way of trying to control us, I guess. We won't read his posts, for the most part, but he thinks we have to read the titles, even though I mostly don't.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Only leftist Democrats are filled with hate as much as this shooter would have to be. 

Vance Luther Boelter, who is a right-wing conservative Christian, shot and killed State Senator Melissa Hortman and her husband on June 14, 2025, and seriously wounded another State Senator and his wife during the same killing spree. He had a list of many Democratic politicians he also intended to attack when caught.

Not to mention that Trump, the POTUS and de facto leader of the far right MAGA/GOP, routinely displays hate and rhetoric that is unbecoming of not only the office of the POTUS, but also being an American.

Do you have any other low-hanging fruit you wish to discuss?

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

Kirk could have been boinking the shooter's wife for all we know at this point, Richard.  You assume too much.
Dave

The guy who shot at Trump the second time was a strong Trump supporter who was disgruntled over Trump's rhetoric around Russia and Ukraine. The first Trump shooter was just a kid, who, as far as we know, was a registered Republican. As far as we know, the Kirk shooter could be a right-wing QAnon member who is disgruntled over the Epstein files not being released. But leave it to Rich to jump to wild conclusions when it's evident to anyone who takes even a cursory glance at the available data that neither side of the political aisle has a monopoly on political violence.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Yes, he personally believed it was worth it.  His faith made him confident and he knew each and every day 

You might want to find the context of that quote which was cherry picked by leftist haters because that little portion of what he stated is what the haters want you to think about him.

I can tell you that I agree 100% with that quote because I know the FULL context of that quote.

Here is what he stated since you don't know the full statement he made and if I don't inform you, you will never know

AUDIENCE QUESTION: How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?

CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?  



Now in all honesty, I doubt the Context for you will make one iota of difference in your mind, but it is possible. 

You seem to be the only one who has the decency to have made a fairly nice statement about Charlie Kirk here.  

The others aren't worth responding to... For ME.  Have a good day.  

I'm sorry, but in context, it doesn't make Kirk look smart when he says things like, "The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense." The Supreme Court has affirmed (in Heller, McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and Bruen (2022)) that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership for personal defense as a core right.

And by the way, his comment about deaths being the price of freedom is not exactly a slip taken out of context, as you seem to be implying. It's a pretty unambiguous statement of a hardline position, and the quote is clear enough that the misquoted defense doesn't really hold up. The part about arming children is pretty ghastly too, so thanks for bringing that to our attention. Unfortunately, Kirk died at the hands of a worldview he promoted and supported, but I will say, even if everyone in the audience that day had a gun on them, it probably would have made no difference in the outcome. The only way to really reduce gun violence and death is to change our culture and our unhealthy relationship with guns, but that is never going to happen for a whole host of reasons.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Thanks for giving the quote in context. Yeah, I don't agree with much of his reasonings. 

How do you stop assassins with high powered rifles that in trained hands are deadly accurate to over well over 200 yards?

On the very day that Kirk was shot and killed, there was a school shooting in CO where kids were wounded, and the shooter died from a self-inflicted wound. I guess Kirk would say the cost of liberty demanded another payment that day. His quote was not taken out of context, contrary to Rich's claim.