Build Stay curious Chase adventure
Norman, OK
Joined February 2011
- Tweets35.5K
- Following1K
- Followers1.4K
- Likes28.8K
Steven retweeted
With new clarity on Trump, we should speak frankly about his decision March 13-16, 2020, to approve and then champion the most despotic and previously unthinkable policies in US history, including forced universal human separation (6 feet no less), wreckage of small business, school closures, court closures, several trillion in spending and printing, murderous hospital protocols, and signing off on legislation that enabled massive voter fraud, among other outrages.
This was his decision as president. He approved everything Fauci wanted. Yes, he changed his mind several months later but it was too late. Then there's the great inoculation. Trump actually believed the hokum that the lab-created virus could be un-created with an injection – the most preposterous idea that anyone with a first-year medical text could have debunked in one conversation. Did he make that call? No, he trusted industrial ghouls and their agency assets.
Please don't tell me this was only the governors. We have every receipt not to mention hours of press conferences. I wrote an entire book about this that came out in October 2020.
Why in the world was he reelected in 2024? Because the decrepit hologram who succeeded him after he lost in 2020 was even worse, because he forced the injection on the population even while inviting in millions of migrants without a care about disease at all, while censoring all critics on social media.
So Trump was already the worst president ever until his successor was even worse, leaving voters with no choice but to tag the previous guy to fix what he started. He did not. He didn't want to hear about it. He never admitted a single error. Then came Covid 2.0 which was the Iran War: similar model (stamp out the bad thing) and same calamitous results.
The poor suffering American people. It's humiliating. Regardless of the midterm outcomes, nearly everyone agrees that this entire class of rulers and their sponsors has to go. To be sure, Trump 2.0 did some good early on, some wonderful things but the program derailed and then reversed, just like the first term.
Steven retweeted
If these politicians and PACs really wanted to make some money, they would create a coffee table book filled with the most hilarious/angry replies they get in response to their automated texts.
Steven retweeted
The Japanese refused to surrender after the first, so we dropped a second, and they still didn’t want to... Here’s why you finally surrendered ⬇️
Great video where he gets into all the facts, myths, and reasons a little after the 10 minute mark. Enjoy.
youtu.be/DTAT0UdMSLc?is=xSOq…
Steven retweeted
The internet was a mistake, Al Gore.
It has given wings to the most ridiculous takes that exist, which are too often just wrapped perfectly in so many logical fallacies that it makes them more of a chore to discuss than to just say:
You’re a fucking idiot.
Tucker Carlson and Matt Cubbler discuss the sadistic nature of the U.S. special forces.
Navy SEALs are encouraged to commit the most heinous acts of barbarism against civilians as it makes them far more compliant with future assigned tasks.
Follow @warstrike88
Steven retweeted
Capitalism didn't create your need to work to survive. Nature did.
An employer doesn't impose that necessity upon you. He offers you an opportunity to satisfy it through voluntary exchange.
Socialism doesn't eliminate the necessity of work. It merely transfers authority over production to politicians or the collective.
Under capitalism, you're free to change employers, negotiate wages, work for yourself, or establish a cooperative. None guarantees success, but the freedom exists.
And here's where your moral superiority becomes particularly ridiculous.
You condemn people for offering employment on terms others are free to reject, yet consider yourself morally entitled to dictate how they must use their property, run their businesses, and compensate others.
You call voluntary agreements exploitation while presenting coercion as compassion.
Your objection isn't that people are being forced to serve others. It's that they aren't being forced to serve others on your terms.
And somehow, you've convinced yourself that makes you the moral one.
After reading the replies to my original post, I've learned that some libertarians have a much bigger problem than their understanding of economics. Their complete lack of empathy is fucking astonishing.
I suggested that paying half your income in rent because the alternative is sleeping in a freezing car isn't exactly a wonderful example of economic freedom. The responses were an extraordinary collection of lectures about voluntary exchange, personal responsibility, property rights, and why homelessness is apparently just another consumer preference.
Here are the five most common arguments.
1. It's voluntary because nobody is forcing you.
Apparently, choosing between unaffordable rent and sleeping in your car is the expression of liberty. Sure, nobody is holding a gun to your head. But someone with $500 in the bank doesn't have the same bargaining power as someone with $10 million in property. A decision made under financial desperation is still a decision. That doesn't mean the person has meaningful economic freedom. If your definition of liberty includes celebrating someone's choice to freeze in their car, perhaps your philosophy needs some fucking work.
2. Just move, get roommates, buy a house, or sleep in your car.
This was my favorite. One person suggested getting a gym membership so you could sleep in your car and still shower. Others recommended second jobs, roommates, or simply buying a house. Fucking brilliant. But what happens when millions of households simultaneously move somewhere cheaper? Demand increases, and those locations become less affordable unless housing supply expands. What works for one individual doesn't necessarily work for everyone. It's called the fallacy of composition. An entire housing crisis cannot be solved by giving millions of people individual financial advice. Yet apparently, sleeping in a Toyota Corolla now constitutes a comprehensive economic policy.
3. Government regulations and central banks caused expensive housing.
This was actually a reasonable argument, at least initially. Restrictive zoning and excessive development regulations absolutely can contribute to expensive housing. But blaming government for every undesirable market outcome is just ideological laziness. Housing prices also depend on incomes, credit conditions, construction costs, land values, population growth, speculation, and investment expectations. Developers build when they expect sufficient profits, not simply because people need somewhere to live. Removing bad regulations can improve housing supply. It doesn't magically eliminate every other economic problem. An economy is an interconnected system, not a fucking supply-and-demand diagram.
4. The landlord provides a mutually beneficial service.
Several people argued that rental transactions must benefit both parties because otherwise they wouldn't happen. Yes, someone facing homelessness might prefer paying half their income in rent to sleeping outside. Congratulations. You've established that people prefer shelter to freezing. But that doesn't prove the housing market is competitive, affordable, or producing desirable outcomes. People routinely accept terrible arrangements because their alternatives are worse. Individual rationality doesn't guarantee desirable outcomes for society. The existence of a transaction isn't proof that the economic system is working particularly well.
5. You aren't entitled to someone else's property or labor.
And naturally, someone had to start screaming about communism. Apparently, suggesting that people shouldn't have to sleep in freezing cars is now revolutionary Marxism. I support private property, competitive markets, and private enterprise. But supporting capitalism doesn't require celebrating every outcome it produces. Property rights don't automatically guarantee affordable housing, economic efficiency, or an equitable distribution of resources. You can defend private property without treating human suffering as an acceptable demonstration of economic liberty.
Now, here's what genuinely disturbed me.
I expected arguments about economics. What I didn't expect was how enthusiastically some people recommended homelessness. Sleep in your car. Get a gym membership. Work three jobs. Move away. Stop complaining. These weren't hypothetical responses. People actually suggested these things. Imagine seeing someone struggling to afford shelter and immediately explaining why they should be grateful to their landlord. What kind of fucking worldview produces that reaction?
Markets are supposed to serve human beings. Human beings aren't supposed to suffer simply to validate someone's economic philosophy. I'm a supporter of free markets, but I don't believe that requires abandoning basic human empathy. The irony is that people who constantly preach individual liberty seem perfectly comfortable dismissing the economic circumstances that restrict it.
If your response to someone facing homelessness is to congratulate them on having the freedom to sleep in their fucking car, perhaps you've spent too much time defending capitalism and not enough time interacting with actual human beings.
Steven retweeted
There has been a surge of cyber attacks happening all over the world
I strongly recommend doing a full security audit on:
1. Your home WiFi network using one of the LLMs. At minimum get all your IoT devices on a guest network
2. Any code repositories you have deployed anywhere and even those you only run locally
3. Passkeys and MFA. Stop using that password from 8 years ago and move to a password manager like 1Password
All a pain to do but a tiny amount of time relative to cleaning up a potentially large mess later
Steven retweeted
BREAKING: The 15 largest S&P 500 stocks now account for a record 46.7% of the index’s market value.
By comparison, during the 2000 Dot-Com Bubble, the 15 largest stocks accounted for 27.2% of the S&P 500.
The remaining 485 stocks represent just 53.3% of the S&P 500’s market cap.
This comes as Nvidia, $NVDA, Apple, $AAPL, Alphabet, $GOOGL, and Microsoft, $MSFT, account for 7.5%, 7.1%, 5.9%, and 5.6%, respectively, or 26.1% combined.
This means just 4 stocks account for more than the next 11 combined.
Furthermore, the combined market cap of the 5 largest stocks now equals that of the bottom 434 stocks in the index, the largest gap on record.
Market concentration is at historic extremes.
Steven retweeted
“One day you will wake up and there won't be any more time to do the things you've always wanted. Do it now.”
— Paulo Coelho
Steven retweeted
While CPI inflation up to 3.7%, inflation is much higher in many crucial categories:
1. Fuel Oil Inflation: +74.2%
2. Gasoline Inflation: +34.2%
3. Airline Fares Inflation: +22.4%
4. Car Repair Inflation: +5.8%
5. Hospital Services Inflation: +5.6%
6. Utility Gas Inflation: +5.0%
7. Electricity Inflation: +4.4%
8. Fruits and Vegetables Inflation: +3.7%
This marks the 67th-straight month with US CPI inflation above the Fed's 2% target.
After 5+ years of persistent inflation, the top 1% of US households are now worth ~14 TIMES the bottom 50%.
Affordability is still getting worse.
Steven retweeted
Not an ounce of irony detected.
The socialist & communist regimes that governed under the hammer and sickle (☭) have a death toll that far exceeds that of the Nazis by tens of millions. Yet somehow people are oblivious to its evils.
The only reason these self-proclaimed communists, marxists, & socialists, who are unironically, suddenly worried about centralized government control, is because it’s not their side currently in power. They’re no better than the scum that’s in there now.
Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Democracy, and even Populism, are all political theories that prioritize the collective over individual liberty. In these systems, the needs, goals, or ideology of the group are placed above personal freedom, often requiring individuals to subordinate their rights, choices, and autonomy to the state or to an abstract “greater good.”
Individual liberty is essential because it protects human dignity, moral agency, and accountability. When people are free to think, speak, work, associate, and dissent, they can pursue their own values and take responsibility for their successes and failures. Liberty allows innovation, cultural progress, and peaceful disagreement to flourish, while limiting the concentration of power that historically leads to abuse.
Societies that erode individual liberty in favor of collectivist control tend to justify coercion as necessity. Once personal rights are conditional on serving the collective, dissent becomes disloyalty, conformity becomes virtue, and power consolidates in the hands of those who claim to speak for everyone. History shows that when individual liberty is diminished, oppression is rarely far behind.
Steven retweeted
Vietnam and Afghanistan ended in defeat. Iraq was sold with justifications that proved completely false. World War 1's cause was stupid, its impact was catastrophic and its peace deal only set the stage for World War 2. All of them, for America, were complete wars of choice (save Afghanistan; but even there decades of nation-building could have been skipped).
World War 2 began as a war of aggression by a revisionist totalitarian power that incorporated industrial genocide into its war strategy. The war ended in total American victory and inaugurated an entire lifetime of unprecedented middle class prosperity and American political, economic, scientific, and cultural dominance. Instead of leaving behind enemies plotting revenge, America transformed its two primary foes into prosperous, free allies.
That's all a tremendous amount of good to argue against, and it's a noticeable pattern that people who decide to do so repeatedly end up making arguments for the good faith and positive intentions of Adolf Hitler, a historical figure conspicuous for lacking such traits.
Hopefully that helps explain the "weird" fact that people get more exercised about World War 2 -- people are able to tell the difference between criticisms of dumb wars we lost and well-justified wars that we won decisively, and suspect the intentions of people who choose to bash the second.
It’s so strange that you can oppose WWl, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran or pretty much any war from this century or the last as a complete disaster that never should have been fought and it’s a complete safe position.
In fact, it seems almost no one can even attempt to offer a rationale for any of them.
But, it is radioactive to even question the wisdom of fighting the Second World War.
On its face, that’s just weird.
Steven retweeted
Claiming Britain paid too high a price to resist Nazi domination of Europe is an astonishingly entitled reading of history. The cost was absolutely immense, but so were the stakes. National independence and the survival of all the countries that were already, or on the verge of being conquered.
After France fell, Hitler sought to bring Britain to terms and not only threatened, but ordered preparation for an invasion. Britain prevented Germany from securing the air superiority needed to attempt it. The threat to British independence was real.
It’s easy to dismiss that sacrifice when you’ve inherited the freedom it helped preserve.
Steven retweeted
We lost the baby.
Holding my wife & kids through pain I cannot fix is hell on earth.
My fam could use some prayer this week as we try to accept God’s plan for us.
We found out this summer that we are having our third child next spring.
Five years ago, nearly to the day, my second born was born with a heart defect. We had no idea.
Ten days after he was born, seemingly healthy & happy, I was driving to the hospital 100+mph on an early Sunday morning to save his life.
He flat lined on the table in front of us, eight times. Once stable, he was flown on a helicopter to a children’s hospital. Open heart surgery four days later.
Now, after half a decade of local raw milk, beef, organs & real food - the docs claim he’s indistinguishable from a 5 year old in extremely good health.
His chance of surviving the event, due to the nature of it, was .01%. His chance of not having organ damage or brain damage after not having blood pump through his body for 8 hours was .0001%. He was protected by angels that day.
I got a vasectomy three months later.
Last year, around this time, we asked God for the strength & courage to try for another. I got the reversal in January and it was successful.
I feel like an old man, having a kid at 37. My dad’s youngest at 37 was seven years old. My only regret was not starting to have kids at 23 and having 8. I love being a dad.
So I’m humbled and grateful that God allowed us to have one more. I feel a new burst of energy & purpose, excitement to be able to relive all the moments I know are coming for us.
And frankly relieved that I don’t have to face life after children, quite yet.
