epbart

I, too, have heard the tales of an ancient race of men who fished these shores, when crawfish were plentiful and prices steady...

quote:

---

I got really angry,

---

Sounds like last night is not the first time your friend gave you the red arse.

Someone started a thread about Prof. Jiang on the OT earlier this week. As I said in that thread, he can be entertaining and thought-provoking. But take him with a grain of salt.

After that thread, I ended up listening to a couple more of his videos this week and I definitely disagree with some of his analysis-- especially when he starts riffing on how China is not much of a threat (not surprising, though, as I think he's currently living there). He also oversimplifies some ideas like how the asymmetrical advantage of Iran's cheap drones present a challenge... but framing it such that the US cannot defeat them due to this. I disagree. It's absolutely a concern and may result in failure-- if combined with heavy Shia resistance and lack of support here in the US (a huge concern between the media and congress). But to simply assume the decentralized, amorphous nature of these drone threats automatically create an undefeatable force rings a bit more like anti-American propaganda (from a Chinese guy) than it does a battlefield certainty.

Again, I listen to the guy now and again and find him engaging... but I absolutely do not trust him in some regards. Discernment is required.

I listen to that guy (Professor Jiang Xieqin) sometimes. He's a trip... all over the place: how Iran affects Israel in one video, religion in the next, and conspiracies / secret societies after that.

He seems to have at least a couple of channels on YT... Predictive History and Prof. Jiang Clips.

Here's one I listened to on standard religion beliefs vs secret society beliefs...


It's highly entertaining... I liked his snapshot overview of the traditional covenants between God and man, and how he contrasted it with gnostic thought... He seems a bit wrong at times due to the way he oversimplifies some things. So, take him with a grain of salt. But he can be thought-provoking.

I'm not a wrasslin' fan or nothin, but as a child of the 80s, The Iron Shiek / Camel Clutch have potential.

"Argo" would be a humorous nod to the fake film that helped Americans escape Tehran.

And anything from Arabian Nights would work... Sinbad, Ali Baba, etc.

Not a bad idea even though you're getting a bunch of DVs.

In other contexts, I avoid calling politicians, businessmen, and celebrities "elites" since their success is often more a function of connections than anything that might make them superior in a meaningful way to others... imho, they're better described as a parasitic class than elites, given that their influence, power, and wealth is often siphoned from others the way a parasite siphons blood or vitality out of its host.

Back to your specific point, the Left has politically (emotionally) charged "illegal alien" as you suggest. Your downvoters are perhaps just reticent to cede ground in what they consider an accurate term. They aren't wrong, and "illegal alien" has its place.

It is helpful, though, to understand the language games the Left plays as I think you're trying to do (for another example: the Left also likes to call genital mutilation "gender-affirming care"). And you're right that some on the Left-- because of their conditioning-- will reflexively become sympathetic to this class of criminals... or, they'll become outright belligerent and unable to hear reason.

... So, to this end, for anyone who wants or needs to engage with those on the other side of the argument, it is absolutely useful to have an array of terms to describe illegal aliens-- including "foreign nationals" or just "foreigners". Using subtlety to start a conversation can help bypass the Leftist mind firewall and allow you to sneak a payload of reason into the conversation before their mind shuts down and blocks out everything you say afterwards. But when you want to be blunt, "illegal alien" will do.

quote:

---

Is this another boomer thread?

---

Sorta... but no.

Suits are certainly not as needed as they once were between lax dress standards at the office and work from home. Many men may only need one or two, but there is still absolute value in having a solid selection of suits in certain white collar professions.

Yes, if you know your measurements, and have done your homework to know what the current trends with cut and lengths are (i suppose AI can help these days), you can buy online and hopefully just get minimal work done by a tailor. If you only need one or two suits for rare occasions like weddings... and if you don't mind looking less than perfect... this is good enough.

If you want/need more than that, though, and if you've grown past buying Kenneth Cole suits, there was/is value in knowing a guy at a menswear store (including higher end department stores like Saks) who knows his stuff.

A well trained guy (after trying to impress you by guessing your size), can guide you on the pros and cons of English vs Italian vs American cut suits and how they look on you and what sort of messaging they send to the people around you. They'll ask about how/where you wear them to guide on suit weight (like super 100s vs 110s, etc). They'll further guide you on what brands and cuts look best on you... 15 years ago or so, I thought I might like a Brioni suit. The guy working with me didn't think it was a great idea (I can't remember why) and when I tried it on, sure enough, it just didn't look as good on me as other mid to high end brands.

Tldr: if you are in a profession that requires suits, a good menswear guy is a great resource. At a certain point, attention to detail about your appearance can have value with who you're interacting with... and women tend to notice, too.

quote:

---

During the Q era, or, hell, now currently, which of the Q types are making this separation?

This is a new angle indeed.

---

First, I'm not a Q follower so am not overly familiar with their framing.

Second... New angle? All I'm doing is trying to precisely recall the specifics of that now deleted thread off the top of my head. Normally, I would think you would agree precision matters in such topics. It would not occur to me to consider this a new angle except that you just brought a new allegation... that Epstein's emails (which don't have the code words used by the Comet Pizza crowd) somehow disproves the validity of Pizzagate... Using the absence of something somewhere to positively prove the invalidity of something somewhere else is a helluva stretch. This allegation demands clarity-- thus the distinction I now make.

To my memory, there is overlap in the broader social group-- especially through the Clintons. There are common elements in the potential abuse that is described in both Pizzagate and in the Epstein case. But I don't remember Epstein being mentioned as a big Comet Pizza attendee. To the extent he was brought up in the Q thread, I think it was usually specifically as its own line item. Only then was it generalized and lumped in with Pizzagate so the broad brush of systemic rot could be painted over the whole government.

If that's true, I don't see why I should conflate them as the same? They appear discrete. If Epstein was at Comet Pizza a lot, you'd have to prove it and provide context, including samples of messages between Epstein and the Comet Pizza crowd so we can discern what's there and not there to substantiate your claim.

Interesting connections only go so far if they aren't corroborated. It's simple logic, not a new angle.

So, I repeat, based on what's available currently, you absolutely cannot disprove potential Pizzagate allegations in DC through the absence of specific elements of discourse in the Epstein files, and what happened in NYC, his island, etc.

quote:

---

I agree with Jefferson.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I can't believe it took this long for someone to finally post the correct answer.

---

This is satisfactory as an answer if you understand what Jefferson means by happiness.

For one, he appears to be riffing on John Locke's: “life, liberty and estate (property).”

Secondly, Jefferson, like many of the Founding Fathers, was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, by Aristotle and Epicurus, in particular.

So, if you google, "what is happiness as a motive to human affairs according to thomas jefferson", the generated answer, supported by a number of sources is:

quote:

---

According to Thomas Jefferson, happiness as a motive in human affairs is not a state of fleeting pleasure, ease, or selfish indulgence, but rather eudaemonia—a profound, lifelong pursuit of virtue, moral purpose, and human flourishing. Drawing from classical Greek philosophy, Epicureanism, and the Enlightenment, Jefferson viewed this pursuit as an active, disciplined commitment to personal improvement and service to the common good.

Here is a breakdown of happiness as a motive in human affairs according to Jefferson:
1. The Core Definition: Eudaemonia and Virtue
Virtue as Foundation: Jefferson believed that virtue was the foundation of true happiness. He famously wrote that "without virtue, happiness cannot be".
Active Pursuit: It is not a passive state to be achieved, but a continuous,, active pursuit.
Not Materialistic: Jeffersonian happiness is distinct from the pursuit of wealth or "worldly possessions". It was defined by "tranquility and occupation" (meaning purposeful activity) rather than "wealth or splendor".

2. Happiness as a Human Motivation
A "Soul Condition": It is a state of the soul that arises from living in harmony with conscience, reason, and moral purpose.
Service and Employment: Jefferson felt that a mind always employed is always happy, suggesting that purposeful work is a primary driver of happiness.
Individual and Collective Good: The pursuit of happiness includes contributing to the greater good, not just personal satisfaction.

3. Happiness and Government
Purpose of Government: Jefferson maintained that the "only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it".
Protection, Not Provision: The government's role is not to provide happiness (as it is not owed to anyone), but to protect the freedom in which citizens can pursue it.
"Rights" to Pursuit: He deemed the "pursuit of happiness" an inalienable right, implying that individuals must be free from oppression (a "disruption of energies") to pursue their own thriving.

4. Philosophical Influences
Epicureanism: In his later life, Jefferson identified as an Epicurean, which in his view meant a rational, gentle philosophy focusing on friendship, limiting desires to necessities, and achieving peace of mind.
Stoicism/Ancient Philosophy: He was heavily influenced by Cicero and other classical thinkers who emphasized that happiness is a result of a good conscience and self-discipline.

In summary, for Jefferson, happiness is the ultimate human endeavor that drives individuals to develop their talents, act with integrity, and contribute to the community, while the government's role is to ensure the liberty to do so.

---

If you google "what is happiness as a motive to human affairs according to Aristotle", the answer will be very similar.

In short, there was a very strong, ethical and moral dimension that informed Jefferson's interesting deviation in word choice away from Locke's assertion. Understanding this notion of happiness, it is clear that there is a dutiful component to it-- a responsibility as to how we conduct our affairs and how we treat one another... and that the harmony that arises from this way of life generates true happiness. Happiness, to Jefferson, is not just selfishly engaging in pleasurable activity.

quote:

---

For much of the last year, staffers who were initially part of the Department of Government Efficiency effort improperly accessed and shared sensitive personal data on millions of Americans.

---

If it was established and performed within the DOGE framework as established by President Trump, it was not improperly accessed or shared.

quote:

---

The Trump administration hasn't been able to answer how much data is at risk, what it was used for or why its unprecedented efforts to consolidate data are needed.

---

How much data is at risk? Perhaps none if it was properly accessed and collected within the established framework of DOGE. Otherwise, the mission of DOGE is/was to identify waste and fraud in the pursuit of improving government efficiency, which answers the other sensationalized, abstract hypotheticals. I fail to see a problem if the work was done as ordered.

quote:

---

Those questions deepened last week, when the Social Security Administration said it discovered DOGE employees at the agency secretly and improperly shared sensitive personal data last year, but once again can't verify the extent of the violations. The admission came in a court filing last Friday, Jan. 16, that made numerous corrections to testimony given by top agency officials last year in a lawsuit alleging that DOGE was illegally accessing Social Security data.

---

The work was ordered by the Executive branch. Secretly isn't necessarily a problem if it precluded bad actors from hiding data. Further, secretly applies to investigations as well, and if DOGE disclosed to the SSA that they were investigating waste and fraud, I don't see why they should be compelled to divulge all of their processes and other information that the SSA didn't need to know.

Again, improperly isn't accurate if DOGE team members worked within the DOGE framework. If the executive branch ordered it, it is arguable at best to call it illegal. There may have been an authority / jurisdictional dispute as to how much DOGE could do, but this is not some blatantly criminal undertaking.

quote:

---

The unnamed employees secretly conferred with a political advocacy group about a request to match Social Security data with state voter rolls to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States," the filing said. It remains unclear whether any data actually went to this group.

---

If whatever consultancy between DOGE members and others was allowed / encouraged by the executive branch for guidance about how to identify waste and fraud, I don't see an issue. If the intent was the to find fraud... and if they find fraud, I don't see an issue. If they don't find fraud, then that isn't a problem either. And if they only consulted with the advocacy group but didn't share it, then there isn't a problem, and that's a baseless allegation.

quote:

---

"Based on its review of records obtained during or after October 2025, SSA identified communications, use of data, and other actions by the then-SSA DOGE Team that were potentially outside of SSA policy and/or noncompliant with the District Court's March 20, 2025, temporary restraining order," DOJ attorneys wrote.

---

They were commissioned to do this work by DOGE under the direction of the Executive branch. If they performed this work correctly under the framework of DOGE, then "potentially outside of SSA policy" sounds irrelevant, and "potentially [noncompliant with the 3/32/2035 TRO]" sounds like a very vague, unsubstantiated accusation.

quote:

---

DOGE team members also circumvented IT rules to improperly share data on outside servers, sent a password-protected file of private records to DOGE affiliates outside the agency

---

If DOGE members followed their framework and mission to collect and investigate SSA data, it unavoidably circumvents IT rules to not share data with outside servers. In that context, every time the FBI or other forensic investigators have to perform a data collection, the act inherently ignores or circumvents internal IT rules that employees are bound by if the company or organization doesn't want to share that data.

quote:

---

This board treated Hillary’s private server like Watergate.
The same people are now completely unbothered by government affiliates improperly exporting private records to outside servers and circumventing IT protections.

---

In one case (Hillary), the data never lived in its proper place, where it would have been subject to proper retention policies and would have been subject to being produced in inquiries and investigations. Personal emails were intentionally and illegally used to avoid oversight and an unsecure server was illegally set up to house classified information.

In the other case, the executive branch launched an investigation into fraud and waste and DOGE employees, so long as they followed their framework, were following orders to access and investigate sensitive personal info (SSN#s) to identify waste and fraud. Even if they did not find voter fraud in this way, they did discover fraudulent or errant payments were being sent to dead people, and helped the SSA and FedGov save money.

One instance was an overtly illegal act to avoid accountability-- arguably to cover for other illegal activity. The other was only potentially illegal-- not in a criminal way-- but in an arguable context of how much authority DOGE workers have to carry out their mission when it conflicts with an organization's internal guidelines. There is no fraudulent element here the way there is in the other.

Comparing these two things seriously would be unintelligent.