• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Mark last won the day on February 9

Mark had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

1 Follower

About Mark

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Mark Hunter
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "How DJT Lost the White House" by Patrick Byrne (At this point I’ve read chapters 3 and 4 – fascinating, and more to come.) Ch. 1: All the President’s Teams (Nov. 3 – Dec. 17) 27 January 2021 Ch. 2: Was There Foreign Interference in this Election? 31 January 2021 Ch. 3: Crashing the White House (Dec. 18 – Dec. 22) 1 February 2021 Ch. 4: The Christmas Doldrums (Dec. 23 – noon Jan. 6) 4 February 2021
  2. Ellen, Yes, Ken Starr is right (well, I’m no legal scholar but it sounds reasonable and I want it to be right) I’d just rather hear what he’s saying from someone else. David Martin’s article shows that he's dishonest. Mark
  3. Better called a cover-up instead of an investigation. Over Starr’s strenuous objections the three-judge panel overseeing his work ordered Starr to add a 20 page evidentiary file by the lawyer for Patrick Knowlton as an appendix to his report that described the shenanigans he happened to witness at Fort Marcy Park. David Martin has written about the cover-up: America’s Dreyfus Affair
  4. Ellen quoting Lin Wood: “The State Bar of Georgia told me today they would demand a mental health exam from me if I wanted to keep my law license.” This is utterly disgusting. It’s like something out of the Soviet Union. He disagrees with the Powers That Be, therefore he must be mentally ill. He could refuse to take the exam then sue the State Bar, but I imagine it would take a long time to get through a higher court, and considering court corruption the outcome would be uncertain. I wonder if he could set up shop in another state.
  5. Today Rudy Giuliani issued the following statement: “Dominion’s defamation lawsuit for $1.3B will allow me to investigate their history, finances, and practices fully and completely. The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously. As such, we will investigate a countersuit against them for violating these Constitutional rights.”
  6. The following is by Joel Skousen on his World Affairs Brief: "It has been a long battle trying to convince subscribers and Trump supporters that all the stories of false hope spread by “insiders” like Q about Trump staying in office after the theft of the election were bogus. In reality, Q was only a small part of the plot to lead Trump supporters astray with false hope. "There were also former and current people in various branches of intelligence who would call up people like Generals Flynn and McInerny to feed them false information. They were so effective the good generals bought
  7. Big Tech Censorship and Section 230 of the “Communications Decency Act” by Ed Powell. Amy Peikoff is beginning to see the light after what happened to Parler, of which she is Chief Policy Officer. She calls it “censorship by proxy.” The above essay is based on a reply to Amy. I’m placing this post in the ARI Corner forum because ARI continues to defend Tech Totalitarianism.
  8. Who was responsible, directly responsible, for Trump’s staff being in large part composed of swamp creatures? I could ask the question in a less round about way only it would be like asking “Who's buried in Grant’s tomb?”
  9. ThatGuy, Since World War II the U.S. has been in a new phase of degradation to which Rand was pretty much oblivious. Socialism vs. Capitalism, Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative is now just entertainment, like television wrestling, hiding venal, thieving, murdering Mafia-like corruption. It makes “taxing the rich” or “robbing Peter to pay Paul” look good. I wrote “pretty much” because once in a while Rand would acknowledge that something more sinister than differences in political philosophy was going on. The only example I can think of at the moment is when, in an essay, s
  10. By Wrongly Calling The Capitol Rabble 'Terrorists' Joe Biden Will Likely Create Some The author fails to prove his title but the article contains some quotes worth preserving.
  11. “Trump does not throw his supporters under the bus therefore Trump did not just throw his supporters under the bus” is a classic case of rationalistic argument. Now, as a matter of fact, Trump had urged that his supporters “march on Washington.” Marching on Washington is rather different from invading the Capitol building. I would say that he threw his more enthusiastic supporters under the bus. Everything has changed and only blind faith could make a person think that Trump will be inaugurated January 20th.
  12. Man Entering Capitol Building is a BLM Organizer and Likely an FBI Agent Provocateur
  13. I listened to part of Trump’s speech, as much as I could stomach. He threw loyal supporters under the bus. It was all right to say that storming the Capitol was the wrong thing to do but then he should have said that he understood their feelings and motivation. And he should have described, at length, the role of Antifa. ThatGuy, “Did Trump just concede?” I guess that’s intended as a rhetorical question, because of course he did. Worse, his use of the past tense makes it sound like he has given up trying to get election fraud acknowledged in the courts. But sinc
  14. “... this [“an orderly transition on January 20th”] represents the end of the greatest first term in presidential history ...” If Trump has a surprise in store and the above is just indirection directed at his enemies, what is its purpose? I don’t like cheerleaders unless they’re smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. Who is “President Elect Joe M - @StormIsUponUs” that Lin Wood retweets him? (From a cursory glance at his work he seems like a crank.) Lin Wood himself is only a defamation lawyer. So far have any of his predictions come to pass? To repeat my usual refrain,