Ryan Graham

@bradymweiler @gsupanthertalk @JonRothstein Hate that it didn't work out. He was a great hire on paper and may go on to do great things elsewhere, but it wasn't happening here. It was time to move on.

We can confirm the news @gsupanthertalk that Jonas Hayes has been fired after four seasons as the Panthers’ men’s basketball coach. A hire that excited the fanbase and brought a native Atlantan back home for his first head coaching gig didn’t work out. @JonRothstein first

Bad Bunny Super Bowl halftime opening dubbed to English

Yeah you fucking can. Carrying isn't breaking the law and isn't inciting violence.

“I’m a Second Amendment absolutist” “you have to have your ID and permit on you”

Your reminder that it was never about anyone being here illegally.

@jeffcharlesjr Start?

Actually, I'm going to take this back. Candace Owens isn't going to do a big reveal. She's going to start a cult. Mark my words.

Dave Smith.

@Arizona_LP @Sergio4Liberty @LPNational Stop telling people to leave the LP.

@Sergio4Liberty @LPNational We don't mean prags like you we mean Mises Caucus neo prags. Both should leave the LP.

People are apparently accusing the prags of telling @LPNational to take down a video they posted of Liquid Zulu. Brother, do you really think we have that much power? There's been like 30 posts this year we've wanted taken down and you think they bent the knee HERE???

Trump hasn't changed.

@Ace_Archist For some, it's worse than just falling for it again. It's how they treated people who weren't falling for it. Clint has been absolutely terrible to anyone who didn't.

This demonstrates a really good reason secure voting systems don't allow anyone to know who voted for whom. You can't intimidate voters and you can't buy votes.

Trump is just another guy like you and me.

Name a single communist country with open borders.

The video doesn't show any violence.

@TheHodeman @liquid2ulu @ComicDaveSmith What really confuses me is that the Mises Caucus rose to prominence, with Dave as one of their main champions, on a platform of being anti-pragmatic. Messaging wasn't radical enough and the AnCaps in the MC needed to fix that. This seems like the opposite.

There is a line between radicalism, pragmatism, and selling out. I just watched the video by @liquid2ulu and @ComicDaveSmith, and there's a lot to talk about, but I'll stick to this one point. Bias admission: I have VERY divergent views from both these individuals. Still, I listen to both with moderate regularity. I find that while I disagree with each, their points are worth analysis. I read a book called 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany.' It's about 5 hours longer than the Bible on Audible, though worth it for a rigorous examination of the subject. This book and 'The Death of Democracy: Hitler's Rise to Power and the Downfall of the Weimar Republic' both bring up a complicated question: When do we form imperfect alliances, and when do we take a stand? The answer is not easy. On the warning against forming such coalitions, the Nazis could not have succeeded without people selling out their values. It's notable that among those in Hitler's innermost circles, there were those who went down with the ship as genuine socialists, capitalists, Christians, Darwinists, pro-unionists, anti-unionists, etc. They gave their lives believing things that were fundamentally opposed to the others they had allied with. And even as ALL of them suffered major losses until the end, they tied their hopes to Hitler and the Nazis. This is not a unique concept to Nazi Germany. Insiders in US politics use the term 'snookered' for anybody who will vote for you even though you hurt them. Those who read 'Original Sin' saw how the Democrats do this for black women, passing legislation that makes their lives harder, yet they will dependably get their votes. For the GOP, this term is used for Christians since their worship of the political throne means more than their God, as the GOP promotes blatantly anti-Christian values (and they know it). Yet as strong a warning as this is against forming coalitions, the other side shows just as much warning about what happens when we refuse. The various left-wing and center parties in Germany could not agree on anything. In their eyes, cutting taxes by 1% or 2% was worth fighting over, even to the point of forming entirely new parties. Sometimes they would even agree on a point, but would not move forward because they were worried that Jews might prosper from such a move, along with the rest of the nation (yes, the anti-semitism was not limited to the right in Germany, sadly). In hindsight, these are ridiculously petty differences. But these, too, are things we go through today. Open borders folks and folks who push for an ethical, efficient way to responsibly process immigrants are constantly at each other's throats despite the fact that both are deeply sickened by the brown shirts and their expanded power, and could easily unite to decrease the government's authority and increase human rights on the matter. Switching to a different authoritarian regime, Zulu brings up Lenin as somebody who navigated this well. I desperately need to read more books about the early stages of the USSR, but I'll take Zulu's points as granted here. How was Lenin successful in getting his reforms done despite forming coalitions with imperfect people? How is it that the Germans who united with the Nazis ended up getting nothing, not unlike the libertarians who united with Trump? As Zulu points out, you've got to keep your principle clear. I LOVE the way he cites Isaiah here, and I'll add Jeremiah and Ezekiel to this list of people who were preposterously unpopular yet won out (posthumously and several hundred years later, as it so often goes). As a theologian, it's hard to understate how huge this was. Had these three prophets caved to the populism of their peers, the stage is NOT set for Jesus Christ. Their works were not the most popular during their lives, but because they were principled, that's the reason we have those books of the Bible as opposed to the clerical literature promoting war and violence instead. While Lenin would partner with several groups that did not share his principles, he made his principles clear. As a result, when he got a small step in his favor, the next step was always crystal clear. Going back to immigration, the open borders folks can and should keep their principle intact. Always. If there is an opportunity to get immigrants processed faster and more ethically, take it. After that happens, the next step comes naturally. For example, we libertarians want 0% taxation and to end the Fed, but we'll partner with people who will decrease taxes as a means of getting to that goal. When things go badly is when we sell out a principle and betray our radicalism for the sake of being "pragmatic." If we argue for mass deportations or big-time taxation when we form these coalitions, then our principles cease to be principles, and they will be hijacked. Politicians and cops who crave political control of borders win such a coalition because their principles do not waver; they want power, and that is their guiding light. If our light dims, then we lose automatically. This is why the idea of "selling out but then holding Trump/Biden accountable" has always been nonsense and was never going to work. Working with somebody to accomplish our goal is good. But when their goals are explicitly opposed to our principles and we swallow those principles for the sake of unity, then we instantly lose such a transaction. This appears to be a historical fact, though I'd welcome information about times when people sold out their principles for a moment and then ended up getting their principles accomplished later. We do not need to be jerks or brutalists when we tell the truth, but we do need to tell the truth all the time. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel had ways of reaching people to keep their goals alive, changing the way they'd explain the truth they knew. But we must not mistake their shifts in kindness for compromising that truth. Trading Ross Ulbricht's freedom for a literal war on people who did the exact thing that Ross Ulbricht did was a BAD trade because we lost the principle of ending the drug war. Libertarians sold out their beliefs, compromising to escalate the drug war in exchange for a temporary win. Libertarians were told to "let him cook" as Trump stocked up on warmongers and big tax-and-spend advocates. That would have been the time to revoke our support. If you don't actually have a principle or have a bad principle ("mass deportations are good, actually"), then you're simply a useful pawn and fall for the grift of the Nazis as opposed to the revolutions of Isaiah. Lots of words, I know, and I get that most people won't read them all. I benefited personally from thinking about this, which matters. I'm sure Smith and Zulu don't agree with me on much, but I'm glad to be able to think deeper about this subject. I'll probably have more to say as I continue to read and listen; this discussion just felt very timely in my life.

Evergreen headline

Better yet, let us keep it instead of taking it and then giving it back to us with stipulations.

@DavidBCollum Increase supply.

Social Awareness Poll: What is the best way to make housing more affordable for the younger generations?