TSA

DHS Kinda/Sorta Still Funded, But Why?

|

So the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has slipped the hangman's noose, at least for a little while longer. Proving they really are the stupid party (just like 2016 presidential hopeful Gov. Bobby Jindal said it was), the GOP has somehow managed to turn a huge victory in the midterms and a court order against Barack Obama's immigration plan into something like a complete defeat.

DHS is wheezing along on some sort of one-week continuing resolution, meaning that Republicans will likely legislatively soil themselves again sometime in the coming few days. It's hard to remember that their opponents, the Democrats, are themselves major losers and headed by a guy who easily won re-election despite having awful approval ratings and not even being that good for laughs anymore.

As I wrote for The Daily Beast earlier this week, by focusing on the illegal immigration issue rather than the very existence of DHS, the GOP majority missed a great opportunity to show it is serous about reducing the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. 

Created in 2002 in the mad crush of panic, paranoia, and patriotic pants-wetting after the 9/11 attacks, DHS has always been a stupid idea. Even at the time, creating a new cabinet-level department responsible for 22 different agencies and services was suspect. Exactly how was adding a new layer of bureaucracy supposed to make us safer (and that's leaving aside the question of just what the hell "homeland security" actually means)? DHS leaders answer to no fewer than 90 congressional committees and subcommittees that oversee the department's various functions. Good luck with all that.

But don't feel sorry for the shmoes running DHS. Over the last decade, the budget for DHS has doubled (to $54 billion in 2014) even as its reputation for general mismanagement, wasteful spending, and civil liberties abuses flourishes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) routinely lists DHS on its "high risk" list of badly run outfits and surveys of federal workers have concluded "that DHS is the worst department to work for in the government," writes Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. He also notes, a "Washington Post investigation found that many DHS employees say they have 'a dysfunctional work environment' with 'abysmal morale.'" Somewhere, the Postmaster General is pumping his fist.

Read more here.

If there's one agency that defines the DHS for Americans, it's the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), one of the few new federal services created as DHS came into being. When TSA celebrated its 10th anniversary, two Republican congressmen issued a report blasting the agency for bloated spending and near-zero-efficiency at halting teorrorism. Virtually everyone agrees not just that TSA engages in what Bruce Schneier called "security theater," but that TSA is performing at the community theater level.

And yet, rather than taking the opportunity of a new congressional majority to, you know, follow through on decades of Goldwaterian rhetoric about cutting the government, today's Republicans find themselves boxed in after failing to deliver the necessary votes to work their will on a lame-duck president and a minority party led by such modern-day Machiavels as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

It's gonna be a fun two years, especially if your idea of fun is watching car crashes.

On the upside, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) won the CPAC straw poll for the third year in a row, despite his (read: because of) libertarianish leanings.

Related: "44 Ways to Say TSA"

Advertisement

NEXT: VIDEO: We Got on Grindr at CPAC

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Never trust Republicans to the right thing.

    1. Never trust Republicans.

      fixed

    2. Why should they give a damn about what you think is the right thing when you don’t vote for them.

      1. My winning smile?

        1. How you doin’????

      2. Shouldn’t they give a damn what their own party thinks, Tulptard?

        1. They should. And this charade wasn’t advancing their party’s agenda one bit.

          Of course Reason wants leech off of the political power and media exposure they’ve earned to promote Reason’s opinions. Reason can’t even keep a watered-down TV show on a fourth-tier channel on the air for much more than a year, so they need to leech.

          1. Of course Reason wants leech off of the political power and media exposure the GOP has earned

            1. What the fuck is this I don’t even

              1. Neither do

            2. Please explain this.

              1. THis may not be Tulpa, but in fact, the anti-Christ.

                I saw her making similar non-sensical arguments on a thread discussing the cancellation of TI.

                1. The Thing/Elsa Thing.

                  1. In case you missed it. It’s great.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dooAjI6yOhg

        2. Ahhhhhh

          You have stumbled into the real deal here. The answer is no.

          Keep in mind that the central, corporate funders and controllers of the party have very different objectives from what you might call the “main stream” of Republicans.

          This is a key reason for campaigns that run on the basis of “vote for #### Republican because just LOOK how HORRIBLE his Democratic opponent is!

          This strategy has worked for 50 years at least, and they have no expectation that it will fail to work in the next election either.

          This is why although Jeb has no measurable support in the wider party, he is still well funded and rising as a potential candidate.

          Those that control the party internally intend to choose the candidate and get him in by running against either Hillary or Lizzy Warren as foils.

          Nothing new to see here, move along now.

          1. Yeah. The GOP needs to reform or die.

            I won’t vote for Bush or any other corporate candidate. I might vote for Walker and probably would vote for Paul, but I’m staying home and will pop the champaign cork for a Hillary win if the GOP candidate is another turd. Because what difference, at this point, does it make? We need to embrace the suck is that’s our only option.

      3. Also, they are not going to listen to a single voter regardless. Unless that voter can also provide big cash or other rewards. So even if I voted for them it would not matter since I’m not going to stuff bills in their Big G-strings.

        1. Mmmm that’s not true. You can’t buy elections; money doesn’t vote. They will listen to you if they think you’ll give them more power in exchange for free stuff.

          1. “other rewards”

          2. Wrong. A study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities proved America is an oligarchy. One of the key findings of the study was that when a majority of Americans disagrees with the elites, they generally lose.

            Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-…..s-27074746

            Also, the candidates we have to “vote for” are decided for us IN ADVANCE by powerful elites and political insiders. You’re naive if you think money can’t buy votes. It buys the most important votes of all: The votes of the oligarchs.

            1. You’re naive if you think money can’t buy votes.

              Actually I’m supported by evidence: there is no correlation between the money spent and the likelihood of winning. Your paper doesn’t contradict what I said.

        2. “Big G-strings”

          File that under “things that should never be”

          1. Imagine John Boehner wildly gyrating for donations.

            1. It really is pronounced “boner”

              1. Not any more…yuck!

            2. No, no I won’t. GET OUT OF MY HEAD

            3. Donations for bright orange Florida orange juice? I’m so hot right now.

              1. How about an 3 inch long orange popsicle?

                1. Been there, done that. As long as we are actually talking about frozen confectionaries.

  2. Fuck. I the Republicans would do something stupid, but I’m still pissed.

    In other news, Maduro says Venezualan authorities have an American pilot in custody. Maduro claims the American was recruiting for a coup.

    1. “I figured the Republicans…”

    2. American was recruiting for a coup.

      Selling toilet paper at Market(tm) Prices?

      1. The market is in the toilet!

    3. Of course we have spies there. I refuse to believe, however, that Venezuela is competent enough to capture them.

      1. Venezuela’s intelligence apparatus is basically a sublet of Cuba’s intel agency. Make of that what you will.

        1. No it isn’t. If you disagree, let’s lay it on the on the table. I’m sure you’re knowledgeable about such matters.

          1. I am knowledgeable of such matters thanks for the compliment.

            This article goes into some detail regarding the activity of Cuba’s intelligence activities in Venezuela: http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..a-protests

            Here’s another brief news article from a great libertarian news site about the efforts of Cuba’s efforts to infiltrate opposition groups in Venezuela: http://panampost.com/belen-mar…..-in-chile/

    4. Pure theater. Sadly the one we have here is not any better.

  3. Another Big missed opportunity was not reacting immediately to the net neutrality ruling by voting to abolish the FCC and turn its most basic function over to a much smaller, newly reconstituted “Federal Radio Commission”. Roll back the New Deal!

    1. Why wouldn’t republicans want control over the internet? They’re getting an imperial presidency on the cheap here.

      1. Gotta protect the kids from boobs and bad words.

        1. This. I can’t wait until the useful idiots who supported this are shocked – SHOCKED – when a Republican FCC starts going Janet Jackson’s tit on every porn site on the internet.

          1. I wouldn’t oppose that on aesthetic grounds.

          2. To be fair, the Republicans on the FCC strongly opposed this.

            1. True, but the American Family Association wing of the party has been calling for federal prosecution of internet “obscenity” for nearly 2 decades now, and you can bank of them wanting to get their hands on those newly-minted FCC powers if the opportunity should arise.

              1. Yeah but that wing is pretty feckless, and they’re getting weaker.

                1. Yeah but that wing is pretty feckless, and they’re getting weaker.

                  All it takes is throwing the SoCons a bone in the form of letting them pick the AG in a Paul or Walker administration.

                  1. Paul won’t let that happen. Walker might.

    2. Even before the FCC, radio spectrum disputes were easily handled by the courts using the same principle as homesteading. Here, you’d just consider the first user of a frequency band in a particular area. There’s some gray area at the edges (roll-off/overlap between two areas) but nothing that can’t be arbitrated.

      If I recall the intent of the FCC, or the Communications Act of 1934, was over concerns about interference with Navy radios. They wanted some absolute way to guarantee military and emergency spectrum usage. Of course it quickly expanded from it’s original intent and why wouldn’t it, when you’ve now been granted the power over regulating communication media.

      1. 1. There would be immediate conflict between spectrum property rights and geographical property rights. Any time I start up an electrical circuit on my geographical property I’m trespassing on someone else’s spectrum property.

        2. It’s far easier to “occupy” a ton of spectrum over a lot of area than it is to do with land. There’s perverse incentives all over the place.

        3. Enforcing my spectrum property is going to require trespassing on someone else’s geographic property (to find the signal of an interferer).

        4. The boundary issues are NOT going to be easy to ferret out.

        Geographical property only sort-of works because of centuries of tweaking of the common law (easements, adverse possession, etc). Treating spectrum as property is going to cause a whole bunch of trouble.

        1. This is pretty easy to settle out. np has stated that the courts easily handled previous problems wrt spectrum. All he has to do is provide a credible citation and he wins.

          1. No, that’s not how it works.

            1. Because Tulpatard says so!

            2. actually, Cytotoxic is correct. The point can be proved by examples.

              of course, the examples have not yet been provided.

        2. First mere occupying won’t be a problem since you need to actually use power to broadcast. Second homesteading or spectrum steading requires proving utilization, as in broadcasting to other recipients. So you can just use occupy the space with white noise.

          Second, interference would be from interfering between broadcaster/transmitter and receiver, NOT merely I using same/similar band. So long as you don’t cause interference, such as using different spread spectrum encoding, then there is nothing to dispute.

          The homesteading analogy in airwaves would augmented to a 3D topology. So long as I don’t interfere with your plane to grow apples and I can grow apples in the same x-y plane/shifted by Z, then there can be no claims made since you can’t show any intrusion/damage or effects.

          Look at 2.4GHz spectrum. I can use it in my home for wifi. But it does not interfere with cell phone coverage outside of my home. So no tortious claims can be made from cell providers.

          1. Not to imply you are lying or over-reaching, but you can and will shut this whole think down if you just provide a good cite of your claim that radio spectrum conflicts were handled by courts before the FCC.

            So you can just use occupy the space with white noise.

            Can’t?

            1. Yes I meant “cannot”

            2. I don’t remember approving you as arbitrator, Cytotoxic.

              1. I don’t remember caring. I’ve earned it, I’m taking it.

                1. Modesty can be quite becoming Cytotoxic.

                  Kahlua, Cytotoxic has made an excellent point that that IF np is correct then he CAN settle the argument handily by providing examples of court cases. He is not arbitrating, just pointing out a logical fact.

                  On the other hand, np admits he can’t provide such examples, this completely discrediting his original point.

            3. Unfortunately I didn’t keep notes of my reading in passing (it was cited in one of Rothbard’s book if I recall.. searching for it is difficult without remembering the case name) so I can’t find specific legal documents for you now, although it may be in references from the link below, but the history from the birth and commercial use of radio in the late 1800’s to start of 1900’s: http://earlyradiohistory.us/

              illustrates the laissez-faire nature of the short period from the electronic telegraph to early radio. There was no “radio chaos” as feared without a central regulator. It lasted up until Congress started fretting about these amateur radio operators. During WW1 they banned amateur radio completely. That was the beginning of the end with regs leading up to the 1934 act.

              1. Yes, Congress thanked the people who were at the cutting edge of technology by fucking them in the ass with a splintery pine dowel covered in satan peppers.

          2. First mere occupying won’t be a problem since you need to actually use power to broadcast. Second homesteading or spectrum steading requires proving utilization, as in broadcasting to other recipients. So you can just use occupy the space with white noise.

            It requires a lot less energy (like, orders of magnitude less) to broadcast stuff in Morse code over a vast range of frequencies and a large area than it would to actually occupy and make use of the land of that area. Your courts are going to have to distinguish “useful communication” beyond simply disallowing white noise… otherwise you’d have massive consolidation of “property” under a few owners.

            Also, abandonment of spectrum would be hard to adjudicate. For example, as you probably know, the distance a signal can travel depends on many variable factors; if I’m bouncing signals off the ionosphere and covering a much larger area than usual once a month, does that mean I have constant spectrum property rights over that entire area I was able to broadcast to once a month?

            Second, interference would be from interfering between broadcaster/transmitter and receiver, NOT merely I using same/similar band. So long as you don’t cause interference, such as using different spread spectrum encoding, then there is nothing to dispute.

            Not how homesteading works. I don’t have to actually interfere with your use of your property to be trespassing.

            1. Not how homesteading works. I don’t have to actually interfere with your use of your property to be trespassing.

              Except that’s exactly how you would show trespass. How do you show trespass? By showing interference upon the land (that you’ve claimed by first utilization).

              If I use your same land–but same in a different dimension (again see my example of x-y, shifted by z), analogous to different encodings within the same band–how do you claim trespass without ANY evidence whatsoever that is was committed?

        3. This seems too easy:

          Coase coase coase etc, you know the drill. This is literally the issue Coase was working on.

  4. , the GOP majority missed a great opportunity to show it is serous about reducing the size, scope, and spending of the federal government.

    Why are we still pretending that the Republican party is interested in those things? Individual GOP lawmakers, perhaps, but the party proper and the big donors who call the shots are as interested in reducing the scope of government as the Democrats.

    1. The GOP wants the large apparatus of government when they are in power.

    2. I don’t get it.

      Is most of this thread a Tulpa puppet show?

      1. (That wasn’t directed at you, DwT. But the question stands on its own)

  5. $54 billion isn’t so bad. $8 per person on Earth to pay for pleasure of having a stranger’s hands stuffed down our pants.

    1. If it’s the right stranger, it’s eight bucks well spent!

      1. Why hello!

      2. You first. I’ll look for your Yelp review.

    2. And if they find a colon polyp then it truely is a bargain.

      1. Yeah, but they won’t tell you unless you fill out the form that shows you have medical insurance…

        1. They’re really after the dope in your ass crack.

  6. by focusing on the illegal immigration issue rather than the very existence of DHS, the GOP

    I cruise a few right wing blogs to keep up on what the red team is thinking and for at least the last year it seems that among the Republican base immigration is the hill to die on and will be a litmus test akin to anti-abortion and national defense, perhaps more so, during the next election cycle. I read a steady stream of they took our jobs, ISIS terrorists, diseases, get to the back of the line or deport ’em all, and permanent Democrat majority type posts from even the softest of the right-wing sites. It’s just freaking nuts and I think that the GOP establishment fears what going “soft” on immigration issues will do to them and their hopes for 2016 no matter how they might feel about it financially or personally.

    1. Yup. Immigration is the issue where the problem is mostly coming from the GOP/Conservative base not the GOP establishment. They are totally insane. The moment for libertarian-conservative co-operation, at least at the federal level, has passed. Conservatives used to stop caring about freedom after ‘their’ guy won power now many of them are just cutting to the chase. That being said I would not be surprised if when push comes to shove the core border-boner crowd turns out to be smaller than they seem.

      1. I dunno about that last bit. The core border-boner crowd seems to be just about everyone who doesn’t live within 2 miles of the coast.

        Hope you’re right, but I’m not counting on it.

        1. I know what you mean it’s hard to say. On the one hand, the Rage Virus of 28 Days Later had a less devastating and widespread impact than immigration has had on conservaderps. The infection even spread to this forum. They’re as bad as the peacenazis. OTOH, non-crazies like Rand Paul have been elected/re-elected. I hope it’s the really committed nutters are a small core, and the rest melt away with an improving economy.

          1. I hope it’s the really committed nutters are a small core, and the rest melt away with an improving economy.

            It’s only an impression from my reading but I think that that is a forlorn hope. I don’t see anything changing in the soul of the GOP base that fast. It’s just such a long way from where they are today. If some kind of “amnesty” happens and there are GOP fingerprints on it the red base is going to freak the fuck out. It will feel like the ultimate betrayal because that is how it has been building in their heads for so long. I see it in blog posts, quotes from Red team pundits, and in the comment threads of anything immigration related. The opposition is significant.

            1. You may very well be right. It would be best if the Chamber of Commerce would just ram it down their throats. Crush them and leave them with no hope. Remember, just over ten years ago the NSA and the surveillance state were not to be questioned by these folks. Now a lot of them are sheepishly admitting we were right. I bet it will be the same on this issue.

    2. and permanent Democrat majority type posts from even the softest of the right-wing sites.

      Since you’re obviously well versed in these matters, why do you think the Democrats have such a hard-on for letting illegal immigrants in? Because they’re trying to advance the cause of liberty?

      1. If you have something to say, say it. Stop whinging.

      2. why do you think the Democrats have such a hard-on for letting illegal immigrants in?

        There is no evidence the Democrats have any desire to let lots of illegals in. Obama has been awful to them too.

        1. Really?

          1. There is no evidence the Democrats have any desire to let lots of illegals in.

            Other than his de facto amnesty to millions, lack of border and immigration law enforcement, and continuing invitation to everyone south of the border to come on in, there’s no evidence at all!

            1. his de facto amnesty to millions…continuing invitation to everyone south of the border to come on in

              Does not exist solely a figment of your imagination.

              lack of border and immigration law enforcement

              The USG spends 30 billion dollars to placate pants-wetters like you and in so doing harasses its citizens at the border and miles from it, again to placate pants-wetters like you.

              1. Hey, I never said Obama was consistent, but the amnesty, the DREAM Act, millions of extra work permits, inviting Syrian war refugees, etc., all count for something.

                1. millions of extra work permits

                  Citation? Reason would have been happy if this happened and it would have been noted. I suspect this is another figment of your imagination, much like your fictitious ‘amnesty’.

                  The DREAM act and inviting Syrian war refugees basically count for nothing. The DREAM act-*gasp*-allows children of illegals to get a higher education at the same footing as others. There are barely any Syrian war refugees in America.

                    1. Thank you. That’s wonderful, and one of the few good things Obama has done.

    3. diseases,

      Funny, some uncomfortable truths indicating you don’t need immigrants to bring back disease. Just a domestic doctor coughing into the soup-warmer at Trader Joe’s.

      1. Or a tourist. The ‘diseases’ line is so stupid it hurts. I’ve actually had one of our area yokeltarians try to link the upsurge in Entervirus D68 -related paralysis to goddam foreigners.

        1. In libertopia there is to be no disease screening at the border, lest the right to free association and free movement be infringed. You just forcibly vaccinate everyone once they arrive.

          1. Maybe Ron Bailey’s version.

            For me, ‘open border’ implies a filter at the border that specifically removes problems, such as those infected with easily communicable harmful infections such as TB. TB screening is a lot easier now thanks to qPCR. Don’t have to culture the bacteria. The new and old methods only detect active TB, but that’s the only kind that is contagious anyway.

            1. So you want a filter at the border, but you oppose and mock anyone who actually wants to secure the border, which is an obvious prerequisite for a workable filter…?

              And regarding your mockery of the “disease” argument, diseases brought in by illegal aliens is well-established today. It’s just un-PC to refer to it. I believe we’ve gone over this before: you scream for proof, I provide links, and then you ignore them.

              1. A filter only works at ports of entry, which only works if migration is legal by default. America’s hyper-restrictionist immigration laws force people to sneak in. No amount of resources is going to secure that border, and even if it did the cure would be far worse than the disease(s). More spending, more rights curtailment.

                I believe we’ve gone over this before: you scream for proof, I provide links, and then you ignore them.

                BAHAHAHAHHAHAHA No you provide links, I read them, upon which it becomes immediately clear that you do not understand what was in the link/are outrunning your highly limited evidence.

        2. What is your line of work, exactly?

          1. He doesn’t have a job. Can you imagine how the job interviews must go? 🙂

            1. He’s a stay at home son.

              1. I’m not sure he’s old enough for a job.

                1. I can be mature, you just haven’t earned it. And no, I am not ‘stay at home’. *Shudder*

              2. Must be nice.

            2. My interviews are great. I’m a smooth operator. My competition in my field just crushes me. Not that many jobs, lots of people with more education and/or experience.

          2. Life sciences research. Microbiology, biochem, cell biology, etc -that’s my ideal line of work. Right now I am temporarily doing something less…fulfilling. No I’m not a gigolo.

            1. “Want cheese on that Whopper?”

              1. Excuse me? Is there something you’d like to say?

      2. Would you rather be in a building with one person with tuberculosis or 50 people with tuberculosis?

        1. One. I would rather you spared us the quarter-assed reasoning in your posts.

          1. So the more diseased people you can keep out the better. Got it.

            1. I’d ask what your point is, but I’m sure it’s really stupid.

  7. It’s gonna be a fun two years future, especially if your idea of fun is watching car crashes the world burn.

    I plan on watching this Prison Planet with amusement from afar

    1. The ZEDEs in Honduras should provide good viewing and better living.

      1. If it actually takes off, I hope they are well armed. Similarly with seasteading.

        1. It might not come to that. The CCCP could have raided and pillaged Hong Kong right off the bat. The state is not a single entity, it’s made of people. People that like to say put their money in safe investments, which I am sure the ZEDE will offer. That being said yeah they should arm up like Tony Stark. The ZEDEs will be permitted to run their own security forces.

          Last I read, they were going to get started next month. I may not have understood it perfectly right.

  8. It’s cute that Reason expects the GOP to charge a political machine gun nest for Reason’s pet issues, when in Monday’s blog posts they will again be calling the GOP racist and homophobic regardless of what they do on DHS funding.

    Please explain how you plan to get Obama to sign a bill that defunds the DHS, or how you plan to get enough Senate Dems to vote to defund DHS that you can override the veto.

    1. How is this a political machine gun nest? DHS and the president’s immigration fiat are both massively unpopular.

      1. You must not have been around for the 2013 govt shutdown, which was aiming at Obamacare, an even more unpopular policy. And the GOP still got pantsed.

        Terry McAuliffe better have sent Ted Cruz a Christmas card or a fruitcake that year.

        1. And the GOP still got pantsed. a massive midterm victory in 2014.

          Terry McAuliffe better have sent Ted Cruz a Christmas card or a fruitcake that year.

          Or he could send it the person far more responsible for his victory: Cuccinelli.

          1. The 2014 victory came because they did whatever it took to get the shutdown out of the headlines (which required a massive cave on the debt ceiling, which had in the past been a much more negotiable issue) and never tried anything like that again.

            Your “optics” of Virginia politics from Canada are as bad as one would expect. Normally apolitical govt contractors in NoVA were chomping at the bit to lop a Republican’s head off after they’d been out of work for four weeks.

            1. The 2014 victory came because they did whatever it took to get the shutdown out of the headlines (which required a massive cave on the debt ceiling, which had in the past been a much more negotiable issue) and never tried anything like that again.

              Citation? Any support whatsoever? Didn’t think so.

              Normally apolitical govt contractors in NoVA were chomping at the bit to lop a Republican’s head off after they’d been out of work for four weeks.

              If only Cruz hadn’t tried to kind a sorta criminalize homosexuality oh wait no that was Coochi.

            2. Normally apolitical govt contractors in NoVA were chomping at the bit to lop a Republican’s head off after they’d been out of work for four weeks.

              Parasites gonna parasite.

              My beloved Commonwealth has fallen. The balance has shifted, millions of parasites in NoVA dependent on a federal superstate will make this state has blue as Maryland.

        2. I guarandamntee illegal immigration is less popular than PPACA. Now who’s projecting his own preferences?

    2. It appears to me that the only political machine gun nest is Government itself.

    3. Has that stopped the GOP in the past on things like, say, attacking Obamacare? Answer – hell no.

      The fact is that the majority of Republicans want the DHS.

      1. The fact is that the majority of Republicans want the DHS.

        They love the sound “homeland” makes rolling off the tongue.

        1. But the terrorists!

  9. “…by focusing on the illegal immigration issue rather than the very existence of DHS, the GOP majority missed a great opportunity to show it is serous about reducing the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. ”

    “Proving they really are the stupid party”

    Really, Nick? This is Sean Hannity level naivety. What evidence, except for their patently false rhetoric, is there that the GOP is serious about the size, scope, and spending of the government? They’re doing what they want to do, and by fooling dupes like their constituents yet again, they are gaining power. To actually believe that their actions and their intentions are at odds is what is jaw-droppingly stupid.

    1. The evidence would probably be that the vast majority of increases in government power in the last 100 years are pushed by the left. It’s basically their platform. No, the GOP hasn’t defunded or removed these power grabs, but not building new ones puts them a cut above the old ones. Net neutrality lost out, but certainly it was argued against on libertarian principles by the right.

      1. Nixon made the EPA and various other big government programs. Bush made Medicare D. Oops.

        1. Hence why he said “vast majority”.

          1. I would hardly call the difference ‘vast’. The GOP was complicit in most Dem power grabs.

    2. The evidence would probably be that the vast majority of increases in government power in the last 100 years are pushed by the left. It’s basically their platform. No, the GOP hasn’t defunded or removed these power grabs, but not building new ones puts them a cut above the old ones. Net neutrality lost out, but certainly it was argued against on libertarian principles by the right.

      1. The right had nothing to do with passing the Patriot Act and the rest of the security state, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the drug war, the EPA, etc.? And that’s just off the top of my head in like 10 seconds.

        1. That was pretty silly, wasn’t it.

        2. To be exactingly fair-as I am- Nixon =/= right (relevant for the EPA). Other than that, spot on.

      2. The DHS itself is a GOP invention, so I’m not sure the “not building new ones” argument really holds up.

        1. Good point, when I said majority I obviously meant all.

          1. That wasn’t exactly the only example (see the others above), just a topical one given the article. About the best you can say about Republicans is that they want to expand different parts of the federal apparatus than Democrats, and those possibly at a slower rate.

  10. I have been working on a greasemonkey replacement for Reasonable. (https://github.com/sthgrau/greasonable)
    I think it is ready for use and feedback.
    It is based on a script for SSC..

    Features:
    Ability to go back to the last 5 refresh times in case you accidentally refresh before finishing.
    Thread hiding (or at least adapted for reason).
    Some basic filtering (whole message for now) which auto hides threads
    that match, not just individual messages.. (this is the main thing I wanted)
    Simple editor for filters
    Reformatting the date strings and added support for your local time.
    Youtube inline.
    Alt-text for story pictures..
    Plus whatever the source script did: highlighting new comments, adding floating bar to jump to new comments.
    Works in both Firefox and Chrome (at least).. if I can get user-scripts to work on others, I will test them too…

    To install:
    Note, there may be a better way of doing this, but I do it this way.

    Install greasemonkey using add-on manager.
    When installed, there should be a monkey icon drop box near the top right of the browser window, click the drop down and select new user script.
    Put in any name, it doesn’t matter, then click the OK button.
    Copy contents of this script into the dialog.
    Click the file menu and save.
    That should be it, just reload..

    1. Fyi, I already feel bad about double posting, so this is the last time I post this..

      1. It’s sort of a commons so abuse away!

      2. I already feel bad about double posting, BUT WHO ARE YOU?

        NSA Corey?

      3. You have done god’s work, sir.

        everything seems to be working fine. i tried tweaking things in the exclude list and it works like a charm.

    2. Hey,

      I seem to have gotten it working

      In the prior thread (“social conservative worries”), it is effectively hiding 3/4 of the comments because of the infestation of “Hihn”

      (i added his name to exclude list)

      it looks clean, and just has the hihn threads collapsed.

      On this page, however, where there doesn’t seem to be any of that, or Tony, or Buttplug, etc… every post has an orange box around it…

      Shrug! Who cares. I’ll let it run. let everyone know if you tweak it.

      1. ha! it hid my own post because i spoke the name that dare not…speak…. its you know.

  11. So meanwhile, on Twitter, this is apparently a thing. Please let the end times come quickly.

    comslave ?@comslave Dec 14
    @thunderf00t It’s called #MentionRape. If you’re mentioned in a tweet without affirmative consent.

    1. God I hope this is real. The more of this shit they do the more people get sick of them.

      1. mentionrape

        Elizabeth Warren. Hmmm, that didn’t feel like rape.

    2. I feel like I was raped every time I land on Twitter. Does that count?

    3. Warty, STEVE SMITH.

      How does it feel? Huh?

    4. Wait a fucking second. How can you get affirmative consent without mentioning their name?

    1. Well don’t let Boehner come on your face then.

      1. Hehe… John Boehner sploodge in the eye would be a visual and physical hazard.

    2. I watched that on mute, and for some reason, it didn’t do anything for me.

      1. Pl?ya without Manhattan doesn’t work either.

        1. I just looked up AMSR. I DO get that in response to some stimuli mostly cognitive and had no idea what it was. Thanks HM.

        2. Your link is broken.

        3. For some, binaural sensations offer extreme aural detailing as a simple pleasure. Kind of like noise chocolate.

          Diotic rhythms can be used for inducing orgasm but you have to be somewhat experienced at entering certain mental states which slightly mimic how the mind reacts after you’ve entered a chemically-induced altered state.

            1. I’m familiar with her. She has some great triggering vids.

        4. I’m glad I’m not the only one who doesn’t get ASMR. It’s like the non-sex part of an POV gonzo porno, but it never gets to the sex part.

          I actually started Agile’s video above without having any clue what ASMR is and it did actually make my ears, neck, and top of my head tingle for the first few seconds. Kinda neat.

          I suppose if you spend nearly every evening of your life tripping out of your gourd on whateverthefuck Agile has then it must be pretty rad. Kinda like rolling in the grass or feeling a breeze while on ecstasy.

  12. Apparently Yaron Brook of the ARI will be speaking at CPAC tomorrow. So there’s your reason to care about CPAC for tomorrow.

    1. ? Isn’t CPAC over as of the straw poll?

      1. Oops! I have made a mistake! That doesn’t happen often. YB was just broadcasting live for his show today from CPAC.

    1. I find all offensive material to have scientific and literary value.

  13. Doug Casey said years ago that Boobus Americanus has always had this Hobbesian choice between”the Evil Party and the Stupid Party”. South Park put it as the choice between “a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich”. At this point it’s not too hard to figure out which one is the Evil Party and which is the Stupid Party. Douche VS.Turd I don’t know how to classify but being drunk and stoned enough now at the local redneck backwoods bar I will just fall back on some lame Canadian Band I heard once and say “You can choose from phantom fears,and kindness that can kill,I will chose a path that’s clear,I will choose freewill.”

    1. Sounds like you’re taking care of business.

      1. Does it look like I give a fuck?

        1. Harrumph, guess not a BTO fan.

        2. YES

        3. Keep on rockin in the free world

    2. Kick at the darkness til it bleeds daylight.

      /commie Canadian songwriter

  14. Get ready for the revolutionary program that will change the making money online industry forever.
    How Can I EArn Money With Automatic Mobile Cash ?

    Move to a better life…. http://www.Jobs-Fashion.com

  15. What is also interesting Nick is that Rand is getting a lot of play from the usual suspects. Katie Couric for instance.

  16. Barely two months in and the victorious Republicans have already shot their pathetic little load and are ready to go sleepy-bye.

  17. 1) DHS is a juggernaut on the way to becoming the Amerikan KGB.

    2) Every TSA agent should be held individually criminally liable for each and every instance of depriving travelers of their right to peaceably assemble (which implies a right to get to where they are going to assemble without government hindrance.)

    3) Bin Laden won.

  18. “The city of Cleveland has come out against the family of a 12-year-old boy who was killed at the hands of a police officer….

    The city, in its response, wrote that Tamir’s death on Nov. 22 and all of the injuries his family claims in the suit “were directly and proximately caused by their own acts, not this Defendant.” It also says that a the 12-year-old’s shooting death was caused “by the failure …to exercise due care to avoid injury.”

    It takes a special kind of prick to make such a statement. A fiery car crash seems a just reward for that…

    1. Or a fiery eternal existence in the future.

  19. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  20. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
    http://www.wixjob.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.