Reason Roundup

Texas Deputies Say They Were 'Molested and Traumatized' by Colleagues During Federally Funded Prostitution Stings

Plus: Georgia loses suit over anti-boycotting law, conservatives rally against Biden's IRS plan, and more...

|

Texas "'bachelor party' prostitution stings soon grew into a booze-fueled playground for sexual exploitation," claims a new lawsuit. Several high-ranking Harris County law enforcement officers are accused of sexually assaulting and harassing their female colleagues under the guise of stopping human trafficking. In a new federal lawsuit, women currently or formerly employed with the Harris County Constable's Office accuse Precinct 1 Constable Alan Rosen, Assistant Chief Chris Gore, and Lieutenant Shane Rigdon of having "molested and traumatized" them in the course of conducting prostitution stings paid for by the federal government.

Rosen, Gore, and Rigdon are the leaders of the department's federally funded human trafficking unit, notes the lawsuit, calling the unit "an opportunity for notoriety and media attention." Like so many of its kind, it considers entrapping sex workers via undercover prostitution stings to be the main part of its mission. The unit commonly has cops pose as "johns" to get sex workers to agree to illegal acts. They then arrest them under the misguided theory that most sex workers are forced into it and if you only arrest enough of them, someone will give up "their sex traffic business handlers."

Yet the suit presents no suggestion that any "sex traffic business handlers" or "human trafficking" rings were ever stopped (the unit did "not focus on solving cases at all," it states), merely that sex workers—and at least one minor—were harassed by police and then arrested afterward. Several female cops were allegedly subjected to similar abuse and mistreatment, only without the arrests at the end.

These female deputies—Liz Gomez, Marissa Sanchez, and Felecia McKinney—were selected for undercover operations with the unit "under the guise of legitimate police work" and subsequently harassed and mistreated "by their intoxicated male commanding officers," states the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas:

What began as an idea for "bachelor party" prostitution stings soon grew into a booze-fueled playground for sexual exploitation in which young, untrained deputies were subject to disgusting abuse. Both Constable Rosen and the Harris County District Attorney's Office have known about this abuse for months, but they refused to take any action and rebuffed anyone who complained. Constable Alan Rosen attended at least one of these "parties" personally. Three of the young deputies spoke up about their abuse to their supervisors at the Constable's Office, including Constable Rosen's chief of staff, but they were ridiculed by their commanders, retaliated against by their abusers, and quietly reassigned to less prestigious duties.

In addition, Jacquelyn Aluotto, a "human trafficking advocate" employed by the county (and the fourth plaintiff in this suit) spoke up about went what on as part of these undercover operations and was fired the day after giving an interview to the office's Internal Affairs division, the suit says.

Besides detailing alleged mistreatment against Aluotto, Gomez, Sanchez, and McKinney, the women's suit offers a dismaying look at how Harris County, which encompasses Houston, is spending federal human trafficking grant money:

In Gore's "bachelor party"operations, the division would set up surveillance in a hotel room or suite, and both male and female deputies would be present in an undercover capacity in a partylike atmosphere where the female deputies would pose as other prostitutes present for the same purpose. Ideally, this would entice any prostitutes called to the location to feel more comfortable in quickly agreeing to sex in exchange for a fee, and an arrest could be made. This type of operation did not result in more productivity; it did provide an opportunity though for the male deputies to have more fun under the guise of actual police work. Each and every one of these "bachelor party" stings were countysanctioned operations. Despite being "in a legal gray area," as Chief Gore would refer to the operations when discussing them with his underlings, they were done in accordance with department policy, set and approved by Rosen. …

Alcohol was purchased with HCCO1 petty cash and consumed in abundance. The male supervisors would continually pressure female deputies to drink. Gore would tell the female deputies to "drink up," "get loose," and that it was time to "start the party." The "stings" were indeed more of a party atmosphere than an actual operation.

Gomez, Sanchez, and McKinney say they were untrained for this sort of work and picked for it by Gore "based on his personal taste in women—young, attractive, and Latina." As part of the operation, they were "continuously subjected to sexual harassment, unwarranted touching, unwanted kissing, molestation, and sexual ridicule," their suit asserts. And this allegedly started before the stings even began:

Chief Gore instructed Gomez to purchase new and revealing clothing and send images via text to Chief Gore while shopping. Gore would relay the message "that's not slutty enough" while Gomez was trying on the clothing at the store, and was ordered to purchase something more provocative.

Gomez was then ordered to try on the dresses for Gore in his office.

Gomez was ordered to accompany Chief Gore to an adult sex shop where he would "pick out some props"and "work on chemistry" with her. After picking up a product labeled "cock sleeve," Chief Gore commented to the young female deputy "oh I bet you would like this." He also instructed Gomez to purchase dildos and to "pick out the ones you would personally prefer." These sex toys were paid for with County funds. This trip to the sex shop was also the first of several instances where Chief Gore told Liz Gomez she was not allowed to work with any other male deputiesshe was "his."

And it got worse from there, according to Gomez and the other plaintiffs:

Female deputies were … ordered that during these operations "to maintain cover" Chief Gore would be lying down on top of them, fondling their breasts and bodies. They were never warned, however, that during this conduct Chief Gore would be wearing only boxer shorts, fully aroused, drunk, kissing and licking their bodies, and giddy after every sting. …

Cameras were set up so that the entire room was viewable. Chief Gore, however, instructed the surveillance teams to ensure that none of the "party scenes" were caught on the footage that would be provided to the District Attorney's Office for any arrests.

Lieutenant Shane Rigdon would review all surveillance of the operations the day following the evening stings and delete footage that he declared "lacked evidentiary value" before providing the evidence to the District Attorney's Office, again in violation of criminal discovery statutes.

Gomez asked to be removed from the undercover team after partaking in two such "parties." She was replaced by Marissa Sanchez, who says she was subjected to the same sort of treatment as Gomez had been:

As the first suspects arrived and the sting began, Chief Gore immediately took off Sanchez's bra without warning and for no real reason. He then threw her bra across the room. This conduct would become his routine at the beginning of every single operation. While her breasts and naked body were exposed due to Chief Gore's actions, he would continuously laugh, even after the undercover operation ended.

Chief Gore would maneuver his body on top or under Sanchez, where she could feel his arousal. Chief Gore also would immediately begin kissing and licking Sanchez's neck and chest. Chief Gore was intoxicated during these assaults due to the shots of hard liquor he insisted all undercovers consume before and during operations and the cases of beer the male deputies consumed throughout the operations.

Sanchez complained to Rosen about what happened and was transferred to another "less prestigious" unit.

Ironically, the deputy plaintiffs in this suit express few qualms about how the non-cop women in these situations were treated. And even when criticizing the way a particular victim situation was handled, Aluotto—the human trafficking advocate—expresses no reservations about the underlying premises of the work, which involved arresting suspected victims, including minors:

On one sting, Aluotto and Gore's female "undercover partner" were interviewing a minor trafficking victim after an arrest was made. Chief Gore burst into the room, intoxicated from the evening's festivities, and pulls his "partner" out of the interview in the middle of the child's outcry before anything of substance was conveyed by the minor victim. Tired and intoxicated, Gore had his fun and was ready to leave. He demanded the minor female trafficking victim "hurry up" with her statement and began to yell at her. He did not care about the law enforcement work to be done.

Like her colleagues, McKinney alleges that her "experience in the undercover bachelor party stings was gruesome and gutwrenching." But "her most horrifying experience came from [another] operation overseen and approved by Constable Alan Rosen," involving a male massage parlor worker accused of sexually assaulting Rosen's chief of staff.

"McKinney was ordered to enter the parlor in an undercover capacity and wait to be sexually assaulted to give the raid signal," despite the fact that there "was already sufficient evidence to make an arrest prior to exposing McKinney to this trauma," her suit states. As part of the operation, she was "penetrated in both her vagina and anus by the same individual who had only days before assaulted the HCCO-1 staff member." She says she was then forced to drive herself to a sexual assault exam and report the charges to the district attorney herself.

The suit accuses Harris County of retaliation and of violation of equal protection by loss of bodily integrity, and accuses Rosen, Gore, and Rigdon, and Harris County of sexual harassment and sexual battery.

"I have a zero-tolerance stance against sexual assault and sexual harassment and would never allow a hostile work environment as alleged," said Rosen in a statement. "This lawsuit is an effort to impugn the good reputation of the hard-working men and women of the Precinct One Constable's Office. I believe our system of due process works and that justice and truth will prevail as facts in this case come to light."


FREE MINDS

Georgia loses suit over anti-boycotting law:


FREE MARKETS

Conservative groups rally against Biden's IRS expansion plan. I wrote about the plan—which involves hiring 87,000 new IRS staffers and expanding their access to information about Americans' financial accounts—in Roundup last week.

"Conservative groups have launched a campaign of TV ads, social media messages and emails to supporters criticizing the proposal to hire nearly 87,000 new IRS workers over the next decade to collect money from tax cheats," notes Politico. More:

They accuse the Biden administration of pushing for the IRS expansion as a way to raise taxes, increase dues paid to left-leaning unions, and increase oversight on political organizations, as happened with the rise of Tea Party groups during the Obama presidency.

The campaign further dampens already remote prospects for bipartisan negotiations. Biden and fellow Democrats have held out hope that the $80 billion proposal to crack down on tax evasion by high-earners and large corporations could be an area of agreement between the two parties, even if the GOP is skeptical about the amount it could raise.

Many Republicans have already expressed opposition to the other ways Biden wants to raise money, including taxes on corporate and wealthy Americans, to pay for his roughly $4 trillion worth of plans to repair roads and bridges and offer free community college and paid family leave, among other proposals.

And some Republicans, who have long worked to shrink the IRS, hope opposition to the IRS proposal — which the administration says will raise $700 billion over a decade — could help defeat Biden's costly spending plans altogether.

Meanwhile in Elizabeth Warren land:

The Massachusetts Democrat is proposing to give the IRS a mandatory annual budget of $31.5 billion, up from the $11.9 billion the agency received from Congress for fiscal year 2021. Warren's legislation would remove the agency's funding from the annual appropriations process, so that it wouldn't change based on the year-to-year whims of Congress.


QUICK HITS

• More than 50 percent of adults in 25 states, D.C., and Guam have been fully vaccinated.

• Secret recordings reveal officials discussing the "filthy" conditions of 4,632 immigrant kids held in a Texas detention camp, reports Reason's C.J. Ciaramella.

• Biden's infrastructure plan is flailing.

• NetChoice vice president Carl Szabo comments on Florida's new social media law:

By forcing websites to host speech, this bill takes us closer to a state-run internet where the government can cherry pick winners and losers. By carving out companies like Disney and Universal, Florida's legislature revealed its anti-tech fervor and true intent to punish social media for allegations of anti-conservative bias.

• A bipartisan coalition in Congress "has introduced the TRUST Act (S. 1295), which would set up a bipartisan legislative process to keep the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds solvent."

• "Seven Republican lawmakers in the Maine House of Representatives lost their committee posts on Monday after they were recorded entering a legislative building without masks despite rules requiring them," The Hill reports.

NEXT: Why Does the CFPB Want To Protect Teens From Cryptocurrencies?

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. Texas “‘bachelor party’ prostitution stings soon grew into a booze-fueled playground for sexual exploitation,” claims a new lawsuit.

    All in a day’s work to save sex workers from trafficking.

    1. It wouldn’t have happened if they weren’t dressed like that.

      1. Chappelle: “You are wearing a whore’s uniform.”

      2. You are joking I hope!!! So because a woman wears sexy clothes that gives men the right to take what they want?? Rape is the women’s fault because she wore clothes??
        Last time I checked no means no.

        1. Well, you are living up to that screen name!

        2. You must be new here.

        3. You are joking I hope!!! So because an adult person exchanges money for sex that gives the police–including the female officers you are White Knighting for– the right to harass, arrest, fine, and imprison prostitutes??? Prostitutes being busted is all their fault because they engaged in “Capitalist Acts Between Consenting Adults??”

          Last time I read The Declaration of Independence, “consent of the governed” and the “inalienable rights” to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” were kind of a big deal! And as of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Nineth, Tenth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, these were all supposed to be protected by law!

          If you want to drama-queen scream for a bunch of sleazy law enforcers who all knew what they were getting into, others can do the same.

          1. “Check out the new girl.”

            Mighty binary of you, DRP.

          2. Notice I mocked her/him/xer/Xe. This person evidently doesn’t think “No means no” applies to relations between The Individual versus The State, only to members of The State to each other.

    2. Anybody remember the South park episode about the cop doing prostitution stings?

      1. Yup. He got his guy in the end. Pun intended.

        There’s another one where the cops stop responding to calls and take up hula dancing at the precinct. But that’s an episode for another thread, I suppose.

        1. Lol at the woman lying behind the memorial/shrine for cover. Great visual.

          https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1397235006536364032?s=19

          A shooting was caught on camera at the George Floyd Autonomous Zone on the one-year anniversary of Floyd’s death. The area has seen a spike in violent crimes, including one murder, since police were chased out. [Video]

          1. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1397228748487921668?s=19

            This is dystopian

            A reporter comes under fire at the George Floyd memorial and the @KARE11 anchor cuts away to talk about police reform [video]

      2. I missed that one. I can’t imagine Officer Barbraddy hooking up with hookers.

        1. It wasn’t Barbrady, it was the captain of the expanded department thst made the boys deputies.

    3. Harris County. ’nuff said.

      1. Even worse: Constable’s Office.

        Why they haven’t been folded into the Sheriff’s Department, I have no idea.

    4. Geᴛ $192 hᴏurly from Gᴏᴏgle!…Yes this is Auᴛhentic since I jusᴛ gᴏᴛ my fiᴏst payᴏuᴛ of $24413 ᴀnd this wᴀs ᴊust oᴊ a single ᴡeek… I hᴀve ᴀlsᴏ bᴏughᴛ my Rᴀnge Rᴏver Velar righᴛ ᴀfᴛer ᴛhis pᴀyᴏuᴛ…Iᴛ is reᴀlly cᴏᴏl jᴏb I hᴀve ever had and yᴏu wᴏn’ᴛ fᴏrgive yᴏurself irwetrf yᴏurreeᴀᴏ nᴏᴛ ᴄheck iᴛ……READ MORE

  2. Biden’s infrastructure plan is flailing.
    FTFY

  3. More than 50 percent of adults in 25 states, D.C., and Guam have been fully vaccinated.

    The newly compliant, sterile majority rules!

    1. Majority? We’re half of half-ish of three-quarters of the way there!

      1. You have a future as a speech writer for Biden.

    2. Uh, you can’t be vigorous, virile, potent, and fecund if you’re hack up a lung or dead. Crucial detail.

  4. https://twitter.com/auntdiggie/status/1397060178562805760?s=19

    I am LIVID! Just went to book airfare ON a PAID FOR Vacation to Mexico (remember it was only supposed to be 15 DAYS to stop the spread)
    I can’t return without a Covid test.
    Yet THOUSANDS cross ILLEGALLY on a daily basis and are resettled into the interior, on MY DIME, UNTESTED

    1. And you need it even if you are vaccinated.

      1. Hey, at least then you don’t have to wear a mask during the test.

        1. Yes you do. On the flight home as well.

          1. Where’s the CDC Guidance on this?

            1. The science has shown that even if you are vaccinated and everyone on the plane has just tested negative, you must wear an old tee shirt across your face when on the plane.

              1. and pull it back up while you chew your peanut.

                1. Peanut? Didn’t they ban those from commercial flights some time ago?

                  1. Snacks are back on. Had a little bag of Goldfish this last weekend. You’d be surprised how long it takes you to eat them all!

            2. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html

              Some highlights:

              “CDC prevention measures continue to apply to all travelers, including those who are vaccinated. All travelers are required to wear a mask on all planes, buses, trains, and other forms of public transportation traveling into, within, or out of the United States and in U.S. transportation hubs such as airports and stations.

              Fully vaccinated air travelers coming to the United States from abroad, including U.S. citizens, are still required to have a negative SARS-CoV-2 viral test result or documentation of recovery from COVID-19 before they board a flight to the United States.

              International travelers arriving in the United States are still recommended to get a SARS-CoV-2 viral test 3-5 days after travel regardless of vaccination status.

              Fully vaccinated travelers do not need to self-quarantine in the United States following international travel.”

              1. Now there is some rock solid science for you.

              2. It’s so goddamn stupid. The rules are still set up as if there is any chance of containing or excluding the virus.

                1. Yep. Basically by the time the first antibody test results came out, it was obvious this was too widespread to contain. We should have immediately moved to increase hospital capacity and only test sick people.

                  Instead we pretended we could control the virus, and we’re still paying for that hubris.

                  1. Note how Japan just had a massive outbreak of its own, despite being an island archipelago who can actually shut down outside travel.

                    I’d say it’s just a matter of time now before all the other Pacific Rim nations get cornholed with it. It may not be this year, but whenever they open up to international travel, it’s going to happen. And when that happens, they’ll either have to suck it up and deal, or just become a bunch of permanent quarantine zones for eternity.

                    So much for open borders.

                    1. “Massive” if by massive you mean, “a small outbreak, approximately equal to last year’s summer low in the US.”

    2. This guy should just show up at the border. Problemo solved.

    3. So . . . why aren’t you contacting a coyote to carry you across in its mouth?

      1. I mean, we are libertarians. We don’t let stupid laws stop us.

    4. Dagnabit. I wonder how much tests go for in Mexico? Ah, gringo, you need your test today, you say?

  5. Secret recordings reveal officials discussing the “filthy” conditions of 4,632 immigrant kids held in a Texas detention camp…

    Hey, at least they’re paying attention.

    1. Yeah, but it’s no longer “Biden administration”. It’s “federal rando on tape”.

  6. https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1397185850337906696?s=19

    She shut off comments to her post so that nobody can point out that Sasha Johnson was shot by a group of black men [link]

    1. Probably a bunch of uncle toms shot her.

      1. They were all suffering from internalized racism.

  7. They were never warned, however, that during this conduct Chief Gore would be wearing only boxer shorts, fully aroused, drunk, kissing and licking their bodies, and giddy after every sting. …

    Is that a thin blue line in your pocket or are you just happy to be supervising me?

  8. Elizabeth Warren … is proposing to give the IRS a mandatory annual budget of $31.5 billion, up from the $11.9 billion the agency received from Congress for fiscal year 2021.

    What’s the rest of *that* story?

    1. She wants the IRS to conduct audits on 30% of all tax payers, annually.

      This inclines me to suspect that all of her support comes from the 48% of US citizens who do not have to file or pay any taxes, ever.

      They just want to be assured that YOU are paying YOUR “fair share” of THEIR support.

      1. You’re sadly wrong about her support. There are a lot of rich Southern California democrats who back her. Complete tools who work cush office drone jobs and have no understanding of the natural world. “Office plankton” comes to mind, one of my favorite Putin phrases.

    2. Probably the same story as:
      A bipartisan coalition in Congress “has introduced the TRUST Act (S. 1295), which would set up a bipartisan legislative process to keep the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds solvent.”
      And the ‘Overseas Contingency Fund’ at the Pentagon for all war spending and their slush fund.

      Spending is now on autopilot. There is no interest in having that subject to control (or presumably oversight). The only question is whether the spending will be funded by taxes or whether it will be funded by debt on the next generation and as the bank/house bubble subsidy.

      This will be the actual political legacy of boomers. An evil generation.

      1. Ageist.

        1. Technically I’m a boomer though I’ve always thought there is a huge difference between the Nam-era and Obama-era boomers.

          1. Generational cohorting is a fool’s game.

            1. Just like kerplunk

          2. “Technically I’m a boomer”
            That was extremely obvious.

  9. Conservative groups rally against Biden’s IRS expansion plan.

    Yeah, Democrats will never lose another election. Totally safe for the midterms.

    1. So now you’re a right-wing extremist if you don’t fervently support raising taxes.

      1. Enemies of the state.

      2. This is just a failure of creativity:
        “It’s not a Tax Authority expansion; it’s a Fraud Prevention Stimulus”

      3. This is an easy one. The IRS is being expanded in order trample people rights. This is okay in progressive world, because since the IRS is unconstitutional, they don’t have to follow the constitution

        1. Its also okay in Trump world to tax unconstitutionally by E.O. What’s a man who wants to keep the fruit of his own labor to do?

          1. Yea it’s odd too considering Obama and Biden have issued more eo’s than trump, including raising various taxes, regulations, and barriers to business.

            I mean hell, Obama blocking offshore drilling and Biden fucking up the keystone (while ironically approving nordstream) increased energy prices by nearly 50%. Who needs to tax selective businesses when you can basically tax every single person and business that has lights or uses shipping by increasing their energy costs with the flick of a pen!

            1. You won’t get an argument from me on Obama and Biden. Fuck those guys too.

              But Kuckland stated that this is okay in progressive world. I was just pointing out that is also okay in Trump world, cheered on by his many supporters. Make of that what you will.

        2. Not just okay in progressive world, but desired.
          Let’s avoid pretending the audits won’t be politically targeted.

          1. At least I won’t ever have to tell people what I make – “I’m under audit right now & my attorney says I shouldn’t be discussing details of my income.”

    2. Depends on who counts the votes, Fist.

      1. It not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.

        J Stalin

  10. There are a lot of reasons why Newsome is being recalled as governor of California, but the one thing that really sticks in people’s craw, even the progressives I’ve talked to, is the photos that emerged of Newsome flouting his own lockdown orders by going to a restaurant and openly violating his own orders on social distancing.

    Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer, just got busted doing the same thing.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/555005-michigan-governor-apologizes-after-photo-shows-her-violating-states

    This is pure elitism.

    One law for them. Another law for us.

    Progressives are America’s most horrible people.

    1. Michigan is kind of pathetic.

      Serious trouble after she ordered people to shelter in place and specifically said they were not allowed to go to lake homes, yet sent her husband the length of the state to go put the boat in the lake.

      What have there been, a half a dozen incidents since then? What are you guys waiting for?

      1. Residents couldn’t go to their cabins up north, but people from out of state could.

    2. At this point I don’t think she cares anymore, there is no chance she is re-elected.

      1. Especially after she shut off that pipeline the other day.

        Hopefully that comes back up for the people of the U.P. before winter.

    3. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

      1. Rename the witch Whitmer to Napoleon. It fits.

    4. She has since rescinded that particular order. Maybe she just forgot that it was still in place. Who could possibly remember one small restriction out of the whole long list of idiotic ones?

      Can her residents now buy seeds and resume gardening, or did this witch forget about that one, as well?

      1. Inside dining is still restricted until July 1.

    5. Why would libertarians— and especially your variety (not verboten Left libertarians like me, Ken)— have a problem with someone going to a fancy restaurant? You seem to have one rule that applies to Tepublicans and another that applies to Democrats.

      1. Why would libertarians support a government of laws that doesn’t exempt the people who make them?

        Are you being serious or were you being sarcastic?

      2. You seem to be openly advocating elitism in the most fundamental sense.

        1. No. I’m asking why Randian libertarians like you would oppose it. I’m mostly here Ken to point out your contradictions.

          1. Ken pointing out a different set of rules for politicians as compared to citizens is his hypocrisy?

            1. It doesn’t make any sense!

              1. It’s got to be parody.

                1. That’s what I said!

          2. The problem with Newsom’s behavior was its hypocrisy.

            Of course, the problem I have with Ken’s observation isn’t that he’s criticizing Newsom. Newsom deserves all the shit he’s getting. My problem is that Ken has put on blinders as far as looking at similar behavior from right-wing piliticians.

            1. Go ahead.

              Tell me about the right-wing politicians who both enthusiastically shut down their own economies and then violated their own shutdown orders with impunity.

              1. I said equally egregious behavior. Not the same exact egregious behavior.

                Ted Cruz and his Mexican vacation fiasco.

                1. As i understand it, Senator Ted Cruz went on a luxury vacation when the power in Texas went down and his constituents were freezing.

                  That isn’t just different from Newsom and Whitmer willfully and purposely shutting their own economies down with some of the harshest lockdown orders in the country–and then violating those orders.

                  Did Ted Cruz purposely order the power shut off in Texas?

                  1. One of your major charges against Newsom and his Democratic Party colleagues is that they are elitists.

                    Well, here you go. I gave you a perfect example of a prominent Republican politician engaging in elitism.

                    Politicians from both major parties engage in elitism.

                    1. Going on vacation is now elitism.
                      Moron.

                    2. Going on vacation because enough have money isnt elitism. Elitism requires one to think they are better than others, something not shown in your cruz example. Many in Texas took vacations during the outage of they had the funds.

                      Do you even attempt honest argumentation?

                      If Cruz told people not to travel you’d almost have a point.

                    3. “I gave you a perfect example of a prominent Republican politician engaging in elitism”

                      No you didn’t. As expected of White knight.

                      1. Cruz is a senator. Not the state governor. He has no more power to deal with a state emergency than a little old retired lady in her Amarillo apartment.

                      2. Cruz didn’t order extreme weather like Newson and Witch Gretchen ordered their lockdowns.
                      If Cruz had created the weather and then hid out in Mexico your analogy wouldn’t have been so retarded.

                  2. There Ken goes again with Team Red horseshit. You go Ken!

                    1. Because Ken says that Republicans are better than Democrats on lockdowns, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

                    2. Your original claim didn’t say anything about lockdowns. You just concluded generically that “Progressives are America’s most horrible people.”

                    3. And yet everybody understood what Ken was saying besides you. Lol.

                2. Cruz is a US Senator from Texas. He represents the state in Washington. He had fuckall to do with the power being out.

                  But keep squawking Dee, it amuses me.

                3. What does equally mean in your world?

                4. Cruz did not advocate nor demand shutdowns.

                  1. That’s right. I never said he did.

                    1. You did imply he tried to lock down travel from Texas during a power outage. Or does equally mean something else to you?

            2. Lol. No he hasn’t. Youre just mad that he points to the obvious and loud hypocrisy from your side.

        2. AmSoc: I muted him; can’t see the crap he posts, but can pretty much tell by the replies who it is. win/win

          1. They provide you a link to see who it is that you muted. Makes for a fun game of who is it.

    6. Seems like you are cherry picking only egregious acts of liberal politicians to fit your pre-existing belief that liberals are worse than conservatives. I could give examples of similar outrageous behavior from politicians from both major parties.

      (It’s Newsom, by the way.)

      1. You could, up you didn’t.

        1. …but you didn’t.

        2. Nope. But she did take the opportunity to squawk like a bird.

      2. Well, one of the issues, here, is that there aren’t any Republicans who went overboard on the lockdowns–both with their duration and severity.

        Newsom, Cuomo, and Gretchen Whitmer clearly did.

        It’s hard to go after Republican governors for going overboard with the lockdowns, when very few if any of them did so to the extent that Newsom and Whitmer did.

        If Newsom and Whitmer had gone out robbing banks, it wouldn’t be biased of me to fail to criticize Republican governors for robbing banks–if Republican governors didn’t rob banks.

        There’s this thing called “bothsideism”.

        “False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

        If Republicans aren’t guilty of this to the same extent, it is not biased to pretend that they are. If the evidence doesn’t support balance, then supporting balance is biased. And if you think the Republicans were just as supportive of lockdowns, in both their duration and severity, you’re a nut job. Lockdowns to progressives became like abortion rights or gun control–especially once Trump refused to impose them nationally.

        Prove me wrong! Go find a Republican that was an enthusiastic supporter of lockdowns–and then violated their own lockdowns. I dare you. If you do, I’ll be happy to condemn him or her.

        1. Is it unpossible for Democrats to be wrong on the issue of lockdowns unless Republicans are wrong, too?

          That’s what this seems to boil down to.

          Meanwhile, progressives are fundamentally elitists, who were whole heartedly in favor of using the coercive power of government to inflict their qualitative preferences for safety over individual freedom and prosperity during the pandemic. Cuomo, Newsom, and Whitmer were a big part of that.

          “DETROIT — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed one of the most restrictive stay-at-home orders in the country late last week in hopes of containing the coronavirus outbreak in her state — one of the hardest hit.

          The backlash has been immense.

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/michigan-gov-whitmer-faces-fierce-backlash-over-strict-stay-home-n1182711

          Incidentally, urging people to pretend that Democrats weren’t wildly in favor of severe lockdowns during the pandemic–because it makes Republicans look good by comparison–is fairly typical of progressive narratives that are so often preoccupied with framing, even if the framing misrepresents the facts.

          That’s another reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

          1. This is why Dee pretending she’s not a lefty is laughable.

          2. You want to talk elitism. Ted Cruz’ daughters didn’t like being cold during the Texas power crisis, so he flies them to Mexico, and decides he’ll go, too.

            Every bit the equivalent of Gavin Newsom’s French Laundry elitism.

            1. Poor Dee doesn’t understand that US senators don’t have anything to do with the state government.

            2. Being able to afford things that others can’t is only elitism in the minds of Marxists and socialists. If you’re a Marxist or a socialist, good for you!

              Your definition of elitism is based on horseshit. You’re wrong.

              Libertarian capitalism is based on facts and logic. Elitism is when progressives and socialists say that politicians and bureaucrats are better at making choices for us than we can for ourselves when we participate in markets. 325 million individuals–each of us with our own individual conflicting preferences–are far better at making choices for ourselves than some central authority, especially when we’re talking about qualitative decisions about the relative importance of risk and prosperity. And if you believe otherwise, you are wrong.

              Elitism is also when our politicians imagine that, unlike the rest of us, they’re above the laws they make for us.

              Newsom and Whitmer are disgusting elitists by those definitions.

              Take your socialist definition of elitism as some division between haves and have-nots in the Marxist context of class struggle and put it wherever you put other incredibly stupid ideas that should have gone out of circulation with the end of the 20th century. You may be a victim of socialist religious beliefs, but I don’t have that problem.

              1. Hey look, Ken conflates hypocrisy with elitism and then tries to make excuses for Lyin’ Ted Cruz. Ken, do you have any integrity left since you basically became a GOP suckoff or, at this point, is your Team Red bullshit just Pavlovian? I’m more interested in the psychology behind your mendacious crap. If I want GOP position papers I can find them on Trump’s portfolio website.

                1. Are you to dumb to realize that US senators aren’t part of their states government?

                  1. I think it’s the same guy who does KAR. It’s that sparkling intellectual wit that shines through all his posts.

                  2. “Are you to dumb to realize that US senators aren’t part of their states government?”

                    He may be too smart to realize that if he didn’t engage in some hand-waving, he might be forced to concede that Republican governors didn’t act like Cuomo, Newsom, and Whitmer.

                    1. Don’t forget Tom Wolfe and our former ugly-as-sin trans health secretary who told us nursing homes were safe last March as simultaneously she was pulling her own mother out of one and commandant Wolfe was forcing covid patients back into nursing homes.

                    2. But Ted Cruz went on vacation. The horror!

                2. “Ken conflates hypocrisy with elitism”

                  I just gave you a concise definition of elitism that said nothing about hypocrisy.

                  Either your reading comprehension abilities are limited, or you don’t want to understand what I wrote.

                3. Well, actually, you can’t. Trump has never come close to completing the intellectual exercise of producing a coherent position paper.

                  1. You really wander all over the place trying to defend the left.

              2. Good old Ken. Ken gets to define the words used in all conversations. Ken has just informed everyone of the allowed definitions of “elitism”.

                1. Except that’s exactly what you were just doing, not Ken.
                  You seem to somehow imagine no one can read your other posts.

                2. Poor Dee:

                  elitism ĭ-lē′tĭz″əm, ā-lē′-►
                  n. The belief that certain persons or members of certain groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their superiority, as in intelligence, social standing, or wealth.

                3. Your socialist programming is apparent in your assumptions, Mike, and the reason you didn’t argue with my definitions is probably because you can’t.

                  1. You analyze of Ted Cruz’ actions is off in the first place. Plenty of Texans could afford a Mexican vacation. That’s not what makes what he did elitist.

                    1. Did Cruz have anything to do with lockdowns at all? I’m 100% sure he did not.

                    2. Ken is the only person trying to restrict the conversation retroactively to only discussing lockdowns.

                    3. Well this is all in response to his comment criticizing Democrat politicians creating rules that don’t apply to them. So add “retroactively” to words that you don’t understand what they mean.

                    4. Ted Cruz also had nothing to do with the power outage and didn’t tell people they couldn’t travel.

                    5. White Mike knows that… but he’s here to shill, so look out, people.

                4. What you call defining is others actually knowing what words mean.

            3. Going on vacation isn’t elitism dumbfuck. Many in Texas also went in vacation.

              1. So is going to a fancy restaurant, dumbfuck

                1. Not if you made it illegal for everyone else to go to a restaurant. Yeah, this has to be a parody. Only Dee is really this dumb.

                2. It is when you’ve just made fancy restaurants illegal for everyone else. Cruz didn’t outlaw Mexican holidays.

                  Critical thinking just isn’t your thing, huh.

                3. The important object of the criticism isn’t centered on going to a restaurant.

                  The important object of the criticism is centered on instituting lockdowns.

                  If she hadn’t been any more aggressive in the lockdown than the governor of Utah, no one would be criticizing her for going to a restaurant.

                  Do you really not get that?

                  1. I don’t accept your ground rules for the debate.

                    The point I am trying to make is in argument against your claim, “Progressives are America’s most horrible people.”

                    That claim made no mention of lockdowns. When I am arguing against that claim there is no reason for me to restrict myself to talking about politicians behaviors only in regard to lockdowns.

                    You are supposedly the guardian here of knowing how to logic, so you should understand that you cannot make generic, sweeping claims then try to constrain counter arguments to more specific counter claims.

                    1. Kens point is obvious and correct.

                      Also, progressives are Americas most horrible people. They actively suppress education in the inner cities they’ve controlled for the past 50+ years to keep urban voters (mostly minority) stupid and poor so they vote Democrat reliably. There’s literally no other way to explain the overwhelming failures of urban schools all across the country despite being in different states and geography. The only correlation is they’re all in cities run by democrats, with Democrat school boards, and teachers unions who donate all their money to democrats (over 90% of donations the past 30 years). Like in Pittsburgh, democrats have controlled education for over 50 years. Graduation and literacy rates among the minority students have only fallen in that time, with graduates of Pittsburgh public in 2018 only having 13% of graduates proficient in English and 5% proficient in math. That basically means most of the graduates are illiterate. How else can you explain 50+ years of Democrat led education failure if not intentional?

                    2. “This is pure elitism.

                      One law for them. Another law for us.

                      Progressives are America’s most horrible people.”

                      —-Ken Shultz

                      You criticized this.

                      I addressed your definition of elitism in your criticism, and I detailed one or two definitions of my own.

                      I’ve also posted a comment below explaining why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

                      https://reason.com/2021/05/25/texas-deputies-say-they-were-molested-and-traumatized-by-colleagues-during-federally-funded-prostitution-stings/#comment-8920352

                      I think everything else I’ve seen you write is a function of bothsideism.

                      If you believe that no matter how bad the progressives are, the Republicans are just as bad–even if you can’t find any relevant evidence to support that? It doesn’t make it so. The progressives are far, far, far, far, far worse than the Republicans.

                    3. The issue, here, may be the perfect solution fallacy. Maybe you genuinely believe that because the Republicans are imperfect, it’s unpossible for them to be a better option than the progressives. If that’s what you think, you’re wrong on that point. That’s an easy problem in your thinking to fix, too. Just read this following link over and over again until you get it, and then never make that same mistake in your thinking again.

                      “The Perfect Solution Fallacy . . . occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution to a problem exists; and that a proposed solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented. In other words, that a course of action should be rejected because it is not perfect, even though it is the best option available.”

                      https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/perfect-solution-fallacy/

                      Are the Republicans ideal libertarians?

                      No. Far from it!

                      Progressives, however, are America’s most horrible people.

                      Facts aren’t wrong because they don’t conform to your ideas about both parties being just as bad as each other. Rather, your ideas about whether the parties are just as bad as each other need to conform to the facts.

                    4. We know you dont accept hinwst debate. It is what we have said for years at this point.

                    5. Classic Ken. If someone doesn’t agree with your subjective judgement that Democrats are much worse than Republicans, then they get accused first of (a) being a communist, (b) fallacious thinking.

                      Dude, your judgement that Democrats are far worse than Republicans is purely a subjective opinion on your part. You are not using any objective calculus to come to that conclusion.

                    6. “If someone doesn’t agree with your subjective judgement that Democrats are much worse than Republicans . . .”

                      So, on which of the issues I’ve listed are progressives objectively superior?

                      Gun Rights?
                      Lock downs?
                      Free Speech?

                      Go ahead. We’re all ears.

                      Progressives are America’s most horrible people.

                    7. Abortion
                      Immigration
                      Drugs
                      Assisted Suicide
                      Wars in the ME

                      Yeah, Democrats are all better.

                    8. Obama started 3 conflicts on the ME. Biden is currently kowtowing to Iran when Isreal and others were making peace.

                      Democrats drove the drug war during the heroin epidemic, 3 strikes is a Democrat policy.

                      Free immigration in a welfare state is simply economic suicide.

                      So basically you just want to be able to kill people.

                4. Wow. You idiots are amazing to watch. Whitme and Newsome locked down restaurants then violated their own orders.

            4. Why, did he create a law saying people couldn’t travel?
              You don’t quite seem to understand the issue being discussed.

        2. “Well, one of the issues, here, is that there aren’t any Republicans who went overboard on the lockdowns–both with their duration and severity.”

          You are narrowly restricting the kinda of hypocritical behavior you are willing to look for to only one area of governance. You are putting your thumb on the scale because you want to believe Democrats are the worst, and Republicans ain’t so bad.

          1. “You are narrowly restricting the kinda of hypocritical behavior you are willing to look for . . .

            I shouldn’t criticize Democrats for their awful elitism unless it encompasses policies that Republicans support, too?

            This isn’t the first time you’ve effectively said that in this thread, and saying it over and over again doesn’t make it any more persuasive.

            That’s dumb.

            1. This is a quote from you, from the start of this thread of conversation:

              “Progressives are America’s most horrible people.”

              You weren’t just criticizing progressives, which I am fine with. You were going beyond that, as you often have, to claim that they are somehow uniquely worse than their colleagues across the aisle. You do so by turning a blind eye to equally egregious behavior from Republicans.

              1. Progressives are worse than Republicans on a whole host of issues, with taxes, spending, gun rights, free speech, and pandemic lockdowns among them.

                Not only that, progressives are also fundamentally opposed to libertarianism philosophically, too. They are openly hostile to both individual liberty and capitalism. Republicans have their flaws, but they are not both diametrically opposed to individual rights and fundamentally hostile to capitalism on principle.

                Progressives are the enemy of libertarian capitalism. If they happen to support a libertarian capitalist position, it’s by accident for the wrong reason–like Hitler being a vegetarian didn’t make him a Hare Krishna.

                The way that progressives project themselves as a moral force for good in the country needs to be challenged. Their purpose is to use the coercive power of government to force us to make sacrifices for the common good, as they see it, and that means individual agency is their enemy. There is nothing ethical about disregarding the agency of others. That’s why rape and theft are ethically wrong, and that’s why progressives are morally wrong, too. Rationalizing using the coercive power of government to violate an individual’s right to make choices for himself or herself is fundamentally unethical, and yet that is what progressivism is all about.

                And that may be the biggest reason why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

                1. So, on one side we have the progressives. Because they are awful we are supposed to align ourselves with the party that has been actively working to trash the rule of law in regards to elections?

                  1. You aren’t supposed to support an election with obvious worse outcomes because you want to protect the left as you do.

                    Even under the guise of you being a libertarian, it wouldn’t be principled to prefer a leftist win to a rightist win because the right isn’t perfect. They are far more libertarian than the left and it is not frankly close.

                    You only attacked the lesser the last two years while defending the worse. Then when called out on it you try to run to the center and claim you prefer neither, never having attacked the left.

                    It is pathetic.

                  2. Go away WK. Your dishonest and disingenuous arguments are tired and unconvincing.

              2. You are really mad about someone talking badly about the left for someone who claims to not be of the left.

          2. Ken’s argument is far more compelling than yours.

          3. No he is talking about covid hypocrisy. You want him to talk about something else because you feel an interest need to protect democrats.

      3. You really are disingenuous white mike. He isnt cherry picking shit. He was always against covid restrictions. He is pointing to politicians who violated their own orders. You had to try to use Cruz taking a vacation as an example which you failed at. Youre a biased leftist. Youre mad Ken pointed to a Democrat failure and hypocrite.

        1. White Mike does nothing but run cover for even the stupidest things done by prominent Dems, but somehow it’s totes impartial and definitely not a fifty-center.

    7. This thread is a top 5 of Dee embarrassing herself with her stupidity.

    8. Hey, she apologized and it was an “honest” and “innocent” mistake. She needs to fine the bar, those bastards, and move on.

  11. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1397183515377111042?s=19

    How many people died in the protests plus the ongoing surge in crime rates caused by defanging the police?

    Compare those deaths to the annual number of illegal police killings to know how we are doing so far.
    [Link]

  12. …set up a bipartisan legislative process to keep the Social Security, Medicare, and highway trust funds solvent.

    Bipartisan: the recipe for protecting the interests of the people.

    1. I have a few polypartisan friends myself; let me tell you, the kids’ birthdays are confusing!

  13. Media blames trump for making them be terrible at their jobs.

    “I do think it’s important to remember that part of this issue when this was first being reported on and discussed back a few months after the pandemic had begun was that then President Trump and Mike Pompeo the Secretary of State both suggested they had seen evidence that this was formed in a lab and they also suggested it was not released on purpose, but they refused to release the evidence showing what it was,” Haberman told CNN’s “New Day” on Monday.

    “And so because of that, that made this instantly political,” she claimed. “I think that that was, you know, example 1,000 when the Trump administration learned that when you have burned your own credibility over and over again people are not immediately going to believe you, especially in an election year.”

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/nyts-maggie-haberman-blames-trump-for-media-not-covering-theory-that-pandemic-origin-was-wuhan-lab

    1. So does Jonathan chait.

      Many mainstream journalists, though not all, dismissed the lab-leak hypothesis out of hand as a conspiracy theory. In part, they were deceived by some especially voluble public-health experts. In part, they simply took Donald Trump’s bait, answering the former president’s dissembling with false certainty of their own.

      https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/05/25/media-pretending-they-never-tried-to-censor-those-writing-about-the-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-n1449427

      Media is incapable of being honest.

      1. They’re screwed. Every week, more of their ‘debunked conspiracy’ stories from 2020 get exploded. The MSM have completely lost the trust of the American people.

        1. Have they? I mean, they should have by now, but how would you know?

          1. You ask a shrewd question. I have an answer for you. In short, the tremendous growth of alternative media, enabled by tech. The velocity of growth is increasing. Why? Because an increasing number of people are seeking out new media. They are ‘opting out’ of traditional media into alternative media.

            If people trusted what they got, they would stay (opt-in). They aren’t.

      2. That which the left deem a Conspiracy Theory today always seem to become tomorrow’s facts.

    2. Being correct ruins your credibility.
      Or something .

      1. The boy who cried wolf was right once. Just wish they would apply that level of skepticism to the D administrations, the neocons…basically every other politician not named Donald Trump.

        1. Except if you’re referring to Trump as the boy who cried wolf, you’re way the fuck off.
          He’s been right about most things.

    3. Reason #1501 that the media have no self awareness.

    4. But he asserted it as though it were a fact! How can they be expected to check up on that? What’s next? Increasing the time spent watching a clock from 23 hrs. and 59 min. to a full 24 hours every day?

    5. Its the classic fight the man not the argument routine that so many fall prey to.

  14. giddy after every sting

    Nice title for the documentary.

  15. Seven Republican lawmakers in the Maine House of Representatives lost their committee posts on Monday after they were recorded entering a legislative building without masks despite rules requiring them…

    Science is mandatory.

  16. Reminder — the “lab leak” theory was completely debunked over a year ago. The Washington Post’s fact checker explains:

    it is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab

    Virtually. Impossible.

    #LibertariansAgainstSinophobia

    1. It would have been impossible if the building was wrapped with old tee shirts.

      1. Or at least that would have slowed the jump.

      2. They didn’t have enough nets.

      3. but the lab wasn’t properly socially distanced from the nearest COVID bats, which were only 1000 miles away!

    2. I think many of these fact-checking sites are now reporting that the facts have retroactively been changed, as facts often are.

      1. Facts evolve just like The Science

      2. Bitch, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

    3. This is how you know they were lying.

      They told me that they had examined the genetics of covid-19 and they knew that it was not related to the laboratory variants.

      This is easy to verify. They had the sequences at the beginning of the year last year. It literally would have taken no more than a day for virologists to examine the sequence and know whether or not it came from the lab.

      The fact that that they came out and stated with certainty that it was not related to the lab told me that this was a dead end avenue. They could not be mistaken about that.

      What I did not suspect was that leading scientists from around the world would just flat out lie. That’s not really something that is tolerated in the hard sciences like genetics, mathematics, chemistry or physics. Being wrong is perfectly acceptable, within limits. But lying? Even tiny lies in Grant applications or publications can be the death of a career. Coming out in boldly lying to the entire world in the face of a global pandemic? That was unthinkable a year ago.

      My, how much a year has changed my perception on that one.

      Okay, you got me! You fooled me. You lied with such confidence that I believed you without examining any data myself. Well, that won’t happen again.

      1. If nothing else, it should prove that scientists are vulnerable to political pressure. But no, every other area of scientific “consensus” is pure as the driven snow.

        1. Having worked in the field, I was stunned. I mean, politics do come into play. I was around during AIDS, and there was plenty of politics surrounding what you could and couldn’t say about that. But I never got the impression that anyone was being dishonest, simply that there was great pressure being brought to bear not to say certain things.

          And there are loads of politics involved in what gets funded and what does not get funded. And by that I mean lowercase p politics.

          But the hard sciences have always been different than the rest of academia, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

          There just isn’t that much wiggle room in hard science. Your data either supports your conclusions, or it does not. Your experiment is either reproducible or it is not. Fleischmann and Ponns got published. But the whole thing collapsed very quickly as people tried to reproduce their results.

          Obviously academic fields like women’s studies are almost entirely subjective and therefore politics both capital p and lowercase p run rampant. Then there are the middle ground fields like history, where facts and opinions mix and mingle.

          And then you have the borderline hard science fields which you are referring to. Climate science is based on empirical science. Greenhouse gases unquestionably absorb infrared light. They will unquestionably warm an atmosphere. Projecting into the future is more speculative, but can be a fairly rigorous discipline. What to do about it is entirely political. Well, almost entirely anyway. There is an objective “will this do anything?” evaluation that can be made.

          But I never thought in a million years that an entire academic field which is as rigorous and disciplined as virology would toe a party line for an entire year. That is just insane to me.

          Of course, part of that might be down to the media. It could be that there were hundreds of virologists and epidemiologists clamoring to see the raw data and it just never got shared with them. And those people might have been perfectly willing to talk about it, but there was nobody in the press who was perfectly willing to interview them and print what they had to say.

          1. I would t call epidemiology a hard science at this point. It is now the creation of non valid models to push policy. Schools began to remove water fountains from schools due to AIDS fears in the 90s.

            1. I don’t think that’s quite fair. There are plenty of epidemiologists still doing the actual science. It’s just that no one in media or politics seems to give them any time.

              1. It might not be fair, but I can see how a lot of people would get that impression.

                Politics and the 24 hour news cycle ruin just about everything they touch. They’re like internet trolls, spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

              2. It is still a science more rooted on assumption based modeling than it is hard replicated science. Look at the classes needed for a degree.

                1. OK, I’ll say it’s a developing science. But we should encourage those trying to do it in an honest and rigorous way, not dismiss the whole discipline.

                  1. Like Phrenology, or eugenics?
                    Just give it a chance.

                    1. Give phrenology a chance.

                    2. Yeah, except epidemics are real phenomena, unlike phrenology. Eugenics could possibly be a real science, but it’s too thorny ethically and morally.

                  2. Rigorous in what sense? George Box once said “all models are wrong, some are useful.” No respected modeler would use a model for policy creation that is not validated and shown to be useful for prediction powers. This is the same issue as climate models.

                    For example… in aerodynamic design simulations are used to test out flight and controls. There are then flight tests used to predict flight given a test vehicle. If the simulation does not match up well to a flight test it is investigated and refined. At some point with enough flight tests a model can be considered credible for that flight vehicle. But it is an iterative process.

                    In the models for climate and epidemiology not only non predictive, they almost double prediction over reality when used in prediction. Instead of figuring out which coded assumptions are wrong, those modelers simply play with knows to try to polyfit their model to data. If you look at the know values for things like reflective atmospheric particles they are widely divergent in the climate models that exist. Because they are fitted knows not rigorous estimations of particle numbers.

                    1. Rigorous in the sense of taking the results of models and then testing them against reality. That’s pretty much how science works. You make a model of how you think things work, that’s your hypothesis. Then you do actual experiments and studies to see how it works. The problem right now is that they skipped the whole “find evidence to support your hypothesis” part. It is absolutely not developed enough to guide policy, as we have seen.
                      But just because it’s difficult to study highly complex phenomena like epidemics doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

                    2. Show me one epidiologic model that has had predictive powers. I can point to a lot that showed to be completely wrong against real world data.

                    3. A very simple epidemiological model proved to me, back in, IIRC beginning of April, but it might have been beginning of March of last year, that the projections for deaths, cases, and fatality rates were wayyyyy overstated.

                      It didn’t make predictions about what the correct rates would be, but it did prove the 1-2%—nevermind the 5-10% people were scared of—was completely full of shit. And so I changed my mind.

          2. And those people might have been perfectly willing to talk about it, but there was nobody in the press who was perfectly willing to interview them and print what they had to say.

            Considering 2020 was the year the press finally crossed over into being open, full-time partisans for the Democratic Party, I’d say this was the case. It’s not like we don’t already know that they coordinate their stories behind the scenes via membership journolists in order to give the impression of a consensus or conventional wisdom, and they do it in the open via Twitter through regurgitating unsourced and unresearched reporting and asserting it as fact.

            Ordinary people should treat anything a journalist writes with automatic suspicion. They simply are not truthful people, especially the Millennial and Gen-Z reporters who make up the bulk of the writers now.

      2. At this point, it’s a lot easier to just assume that anyone in the global elite is lying right from the start.

        The only question in this particular case is why they’re willing to bring this up now. It’s obvious why the media organs flat-out denied at first that it had probable lab origins–because Trump brought it up, and their first instinct is to reflexively assert the opposite of what he said–but the real issue is why the lab leak probability is even being entertained in the open at this point. My guess is because they know there won’t be any real consequences for it like there should be.

        The elites got fucking lucky that this thing tends to kill mostly old people with co-morbidities. A real Black Plague or Captain Trips type of situation would have made it open season on them.

        1. That is another important part of this big lie.

          Trump did not make that up out of whole cloth. Trump knows exactly nothing about Wuhan, viruses, or wet markets. Somebody told him that it was leaked from a lab in Wuhan. My suspicion is that somebody was Anthony Fauci. So it is very odd that he suddenly got a case of the yips and was not able to repeat that fact for another year.

          1. Somebody told him that it was leaked from a lab in Wuhan. My suspicion is that somebody was Anthony Fauci.

            No, Trump has no filter at all. If it was Fauci who told him that, Trump would have thrown him under the bus instantly.

            Knowing how the federal government works, and Trump’s general lack of attention span, Trump probably got some bullet background papers from people within the DHS and CDC, and one of the papers mentioned the probability that this leaked from the lab. Trump saw that, remembered the detail, and brought it up in the press conference, but couldn’t say anything beyond that because he didn’t have the whole picture. So it comes out looking like a crazy crackpot conspiracy, instead of just general administrative incompetence at Wuhan or, even worse, a deliberate use of a bioweapon by the Chinese government to upend the world economy for their particular benefit.

            1. Sorry, DHS should be Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

        2. “A real Black Plague or Captain Trips type of situation would have made it open season on them.”

          Would it though, really?

          I am not going to believe in the Silent Majority finally finding its balls—“the Saxon beginning to hate”—until something beyond mere bitching happens.

          90 minute sit-ins don’t count either.

          1. We’re way past the point it should’ve happened already

          2. That’s why I mentioned it in those contexts. From a raw numbers standpoint, the global number of deaths seem like a lot until you compare that to the total world’s population. It’s estimated that the Black Plague may have killed off up to half of Europe, and the Spanish Flu was far more virulent and deadly.

            It’s not a coincidence that Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson got Greek passports. These people ARE the elite, and that’s betraying a plan to go to whatever bug-out island they might have in the area if something this serious actually kicked off.

      3. >>What I did not suspect was that leading scientists from around the world would just flat out lie.

        definitely this cynical.

      4. It’s now about politics, if you espouse globalist progressive politics you can lie with impunity, see nature. If you go against the progressive narrarative it is career suicide

        1. Nature is one of the absolute most eminent journals in all of science. That they would publish an editorial placing race above science was astonishing.

          1. Was not is

      5. Where did you do your post-doc? My copy of ‘At the Bench’ is nearly 30 yrs. old and citesthis meme as though it were a part of cultural antiquity. I can certainly remember coming across several of the phrases well over 30 yrs. ago.

        I freely admit to being jaded. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that large portions of science has been frequently and increasingly doing whatever it takes to chase federal grant money since at least the Eisenhower Administration.

        1. That is what I call small p politics. And it is the reason I did not stay in the field. My major professor was everything I wanted to be. He was an academic All-American linebacker at Tennessee, working in an exciting field of genetic manipulation of mammalian cells, he had a successful lab and a hot young wife with their first child only two weeks old. He was pulling all-nighters every night preparing grants. Something inside of me died when I talked to him at 3:00 in the morning about my project. I realized I didn’t want to live that way.

          It wasn’t the hard work. It was the groveling all the time. Having to kiss up to the right people to make sure that your grants got a decent chance at being funded.

          From what I’m told it is a thousand times worse now, because the quality and quantity of science and laboratories is much higher, but the amount of money is not concomitantly higher. So instead of one in three qualified grants getting funded, now it is more like one and five or one in seven. That’s a rough way to make your living. And it pretty much guarantees that politics is going to rule the day. Small p politics.

          1. So instead of one in three qualified grants getting funded, now it is more like one and five or one in seven. That’s a rough way to make your living.

            Hardly the first time I’ve heard The Liturgy of the Order of Top Men. Interesting that long before organized science, it was recognized that money and power corrupted but, somehow, after science, more money somehow makes the endeavor more pious.

            It’s supposedly been that way for decades. Like saying the monks who copied The Bible by hand for tattered robes and soup while cardinals and popes dined with kings were only engaged in small p politics. When you show up as an acolyte and get handed a list of lies to avoid writing into The Bible, you’ve gotta kinda wonder how pervasive small p politics gets before they sum up to big P Politics.

      6. After Neil Ferguson….That did it for me.

      7. Thoughts?

        https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1397253077464461316?s=19

        File this under shocking connections worth further exploration:

        Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel (now a billionaire equity shareholder) was previously CEO of bioMérieux.

        bioMérieux’s founder, Alain Mérieux, is a personal friend of Xi Jinping, & he helped build the P4 lab in Wuhan.

        Moderna also happened to have a vaccine ready to go within hours of China publicizing gene sequence for virus. Recall, the bio tech company had ZERO products brought to market prior to its “miracle” mRNA vax receiving emergency approval
        [Link]

        Prior to mRNA vax, Moderna was on its way to becoming the next Theranos. They had billions of $$$ in fundraising thanks to hype, but no functioning products. We are now supposed to believe they solved it in a matter of hours, after a decade of failures. [Link]

        To highlight the bond between Merieux and China, check out this article about Merieux receiving a prestigious award from the CCP while Xi was in attendance.
        [Link]

        Even after leaving for Moderna, Bancel continued to serve on the board for Foundation Merieux, the non-profit affiliated with the company. [Link]

        1. *Groans.*

  17. https://twitter.com/RichardGrenell/status/1397184293860831232?s=19

    Most all of DC’s newsrooms refused to do this story after the IC issued a very rare unified statement last spring.

    “What to make of the COVID-19 lab leak theory.

    While the lab leak theory is definitely an important topic, it’s still secondary to the real smoking gun in this story – how China weaponized the narrative to sow worldwide terror.

    I explain here: [link]”

    1. Odd that there were never any headlines about 17 intelligence agencies on that one.

  18. Note the expansion of the IRS would never have happened if Trump had been reelected and you nitwits hadn’t handed Congress over to the anti semitic death cult known as Democrats.

    1. But no mean tweets.

      Well… just ignore the wishing of death to jews and such.

      1. And the irate, in person shouting down of dog-faced pony soldiers.

        1. To be fair, they were lying dog faced pony soldiers, apparently. Whatever that is.

    2. 70% of Americans of Jewish ancestry support the Democratic party. Are you implying these Jews are antisemitic?

      1. He might be trying to suggest that atheist American Semitism is different than Nationalist Religious Semitism.

        1. I’m not sure what religion or lack of it has to do with anything. Israel was founded by the Atheistic and Secularist Zionist movement of Theodor Hertzl.

          Secular Israel certainly isn’t a weak, suicidal slouch, having kicked their enemies’ asses four major times and countless minor times, including now.

          American Jews and Gentiles of all parties, ideologies, and religious/non-religious views could learn a lot from a nation whose national anthem should be AC/DC’s “Big Balls.”

      2. Oh. That excuses all the assaults against jews lately.

        1. Republicans are the Nazi fanboys.

          1. Democrats were literally lining up to complain about how few Jews were dying just last week.

            1. And Biden is pledging to help rebuild Gaza without helping Hamas.

              I can just hear the meeting at Hamas HQ

              “ The Americans have sent us a shipment of concrete, beams, electric generators and digging tools. What should we do first?”

              “Hey! I have an idea…”

              Biden thinks he can play both sides of this. Nope.

              1. They’re obviously building a Biden Basement Bunker. And you know who else had a bunker?

          2. No, they didn’t kill nearly enough Communists to my liking.

            1. Actually we don’t know because Hamas only counts women and children. Ever see a picture of a wounded Hamas fighter?

              The goals were purely military. The Israelis went after leadership, missiles and missile production, and military assets like the tunnels. The AP building housed the electronic warfare and intel wing.

              1. The AP building housed the electronic warfare and intel wing.

                I thought it was their PR department…

                1. The Hamas offices there were electronic warfare which is why they destroyed the building and equipment and not the people. They may have used the offices for propaganda purposes as well. They just chose it because having the AP there was good cover. Same reason they hide rockets and launchers in schools and mosques.

          3. Lol. A trope without any evidence. I can point to weeks of evidence the other way.

      3. Why not? White liberals hate white people.

        1. “Rich, haute-bourgeoisie white liberals hate working-class white people.

          Fixed that for you.

      4. All that means is that, like too many of everyone else, they don’t know on which side their bagel is buttered.

        With libertarianism, they could churn their own butter, bake their own bagels, enjoy the products of their labor, and do so anywhere they hold title or pay rent or are welcome guests, just like everybody else does.

    1. Total devastation.

      1. “The Chinese soldiers then began shouting “He/Him!” and “She/Her!” at American soldiers, whom Biden had loaned to the Chinese government for the practice session. They immediately collapsed to the floor. “No!!! I’m a xe/xer; it says so right on my dog tags!” cried one weeping American soldier huddled in the corner in the fetal position, rocking back and forth. “You can’t call me the wrong pronoun — it’s literally violence! It’s against the Geneva Convention!””

  19. Aoc thinks she served i. Wat after jan 6th.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/aoc-on-jan-6-riot-im-doing-therapy-because-of-trump-members-of-congress-served-in-war

    Reminder. Her building had zero trespassers in it.

    1. You can’t deny her lived experience.

    2. It’s not an accident that roughly 35-40% of liberals in the 18-39 groups report they have been told by medical professionals that they have some form of mental illness.

      Contrast that with older (65+) conservatives who are at about 5%.

    3. The pay for representatives should. be $1 per term and no benifits. Then people like aoc, Sanders etc with no knowledge and ability are automatically priced out of running

      1. Hahaa, you think our elected leaders get rich off their salaries? Next you’ll tell us D1 basketball players are amateurs who never saw a dime.

      2. Ours in the TX State Legislature make, IIRC 7200 bucks a 140-day session, once every two years. Somehow, the vast majority of them manage to be at least upper middle class. Go figure…

  20. BREAKING NEWS: CAIR & @ThePCJF Win ‘Major Victory’ in Federal Lawsuit Against #Georgia’s Anti-#Israel Boycott Law; Court Rules Anti-#BDS Law Violates the #FirstAmendment…

    You know who else wrote sentences in a language with a lot of the same letters as English but looked mostly gibberish?

    1. The same person who wrote posts in a language with a lot of the same letters as English but looked mostly like a post using a lot of the same letters as English but was mostly gibberish?

    2. Cruella de Brown….the flaxen-haired Harpy?

    3. The Republicans just never learn from the Dems…you don’t write it down you just do it, and if anyone starts investigating destroy the evidence.

  21. Warren’s legislation would remove the agency’s funding from the annual appropriations process, so that it wouldn’t change based on the year-to-year whims of Congress.

    Fortifying democracy by removing government agencies from democratic oversight and accountability and control. Just like she did with the CFPD, bureaucracies are too important to be left to the tender mercies of those idiots who don’t appreciate how important it is not to leave bureaucracies to the tender mercy of idiots.

  22. “Conservative groups have launched a campaign of TV ads, social media messages and emails to supporters criticizing the proposal to hire nearly 87,000 new IRS workers over the next decade to collect money from tax cheats”

    Next move in this game: “Democrats pointed out that the nearly 87,000 new IRS workers would be underprivileged at-risk BIPOC LGBTQ+ people just needing a hand to turn their lives around.”

    1. And they will only audit conservatives turning it into a political weapon.

  23. https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1397014659375501316?s=19

    BREAKING: @Facebook Whistleblowers Expose LEAKED INTERNAL DOCS Detailing New Effort to Secretly Censor Vaccine Concerns on a Global Scale

    #ExposeFacebook [link]

  24. Yesterday was another highly profitable day for Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch and the other richest people on the planet.

    Mr. Koch earned $173 million yesterday, and is up $7.32 billion this year.

    #GetReadyForTheKochComeback
    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. Maybe we should tax them at 90%— like we did in the old days. You’d be ok with that, right drone?

      1. I’m fine with Eisenhower era tax rates if you’re fine with Eisenhower era budgets, you mortgage-welshing paramecium.

        1. Also Eisenhower era deductions.

      2. As a Koch / Reason libertarian, that’s the last thing I want. Which is why I voted for Joe Biden, the overwhelming choice of Wall Street, billionaires, and Reason staffers.

        #InDefenseOfBillionaires

        1. LOL. So we should vote for Trump because he’s going to hurt billionaires. Hahahaha… yeah, right. Get fucked, GOP drone.

          1. If it hurts you and your family, it’s automatically good.

          2. Of course Drumpf hurt billionaires, especially Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch. I documented the carnage for months.
            In fact Mr. Koch lost over $5 billion in 2020 because of Drumpf’s draconian anti-billionaire policies. “Border enforcement” was a particularly egregious example; it prevented Mr. Koch from hiring cost-effective foreign-born labor.

            Face it. “The old days” are gone. The Democrats are now the more billionaire-friendly party.

      3. Only a handful of people paid 90% most utilized tax exemptions. The effective tax rate is the same now as it was then.

        Youre quite ignorant.

  25. https://twitter.com/PartymanRandy/status/1396927713169088515?s=19

    Anyone else noticing how everything big tech censors due to “misinformation” turns out to be true? Wuhan lab, Hunter laptop, etc.

    There’s really only one major item left on the list.

    1. There’s really only one major item left on the list.

      The 2020 election? Benghazi? Hillary’s server? WHAT?!

      1. Obama is the lizard king?

        1. gonna ruin a lot of Doors for me if true.

    2. Your missing out on the unknown unknowns. There might be dozens of ideas that they were actually successful at suppressing.

  26. Is it a case of leftists corrupting all institutions or psychologists being full of shit?

    APA discusses racist babies.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/racist-babies-formula-funny-american-psychological-association

    1. “Racism is genetic in white babies”

      That’s meta.

      “The report, which was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, notes that most adults believe talk about race and discrimination should be shelved until a child hits the 5-year-old mark but that waiting so long could cause irreversible damage.”

      Cripes

      “booting a Duke University neuroscience professor off its email list for stating that there were only two sexes.”

      Busy boys.

      The next time a lefty shrieks “PARTY OF SCIENCE” at you, punch him in his man tits.

  27. https://twitter.com/NoahPollak/status/1396997923758428162?s=19

    Didn’t think they could “Republicans pounce!” Jews being beaten in the streets, but they did it [link]

    1. Those evil far-right nazis, getting all upset about a couple of dirty jews getting beaten like it matters or something.

    2. From the comments:
      “Race based attacks on minorities are inconvenient when they don’t benefit me politically.”

      1. Why do you think they’re glossing over the fact that most of the anti-Asian attacks aren’t coming from white people?

    3. Didn’t think they could “Republicans pounce!” Jews being beaten in the streets, but they did it [link]

      I don’t see how you have anyone to blame for that but yourself.

  28. Windham 2020 election auditor says error rate ‘way higher than we expected’

    This is why audits are needed. To discover and fix election issues. Instead we get told cleanest election ever.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/windham-ballots-folds-improperly-machine-auditor

    1. Every election should be audited. It should be a natural part of the democratic process.

      1. They are. There are plenty of checks in place.

        1. Checks can be ignored when an official is a perpetrator. Every election from municipal to presidential should be audited.

        2. No they aren’t. How do you gaslight like this?

          1. It’s the leftist way, make their point using any lie necessary and when called out, shrug and move on. You basically see it everywhere.

      2. We did audit them— three fucking times. The result was the same: voters preferred an ~80 year old geriatric with demonstrable dementia and a penchant for hair licking over your precious fucking dear Leader.

        Jesus, fucking deal, ok?

        1. Recounting bad ballots isn’t auditing them. God damn you guys are full on idiots. The election officials have agreed there were issues with those machines post audit.

        2. You didn’t see the videos about the fraud? Ah, that’s because they were all banned.

          Nothing says guilty as fuck like getting your tech cartel to ban all mention of it.
          The mere idea of Biden getting 81 million votes is laughable. That you think its possible makes you an asshat.

    2. You want audits then let see plans. What Maricopa Co. Az. showed is that all this talk of audits is smoke. The Republicans who want audits are like the dog that caught the car, they have no idea what to do.

      Want an audit then tell me what is it you want to do? By the way audits are not that hard they are done all the time. But you have to know what it is you are doing, how you plan to do it, what are your benchmarks for decisions, ect.

      By the way if all you want to do is rummage around in the ballots and collect a fee, just say that.

      1. Why are you so frightened of audits?

        1. I said nothing about not wanting an audit. I just want to see the plan first.

          1. The plan is open to the public on their website… youre just fucking ignorant.

            1. Only after a judge ordered it released. Sorry I want to see the plans before the audit starts.

              1. And we want to see you pay for your crimes.
                Hope your will is in order.

              2. Lol. Wrong. Again you’re lying.

      2. Cry more.

      3. I would like to see a valid signature verification as was required prior to the election.

        As we have seen from the California recall petition contest, you do not see huge volumes of signatures with error rates in the tenths of a percent. It just doesn’t happen.

        Which is, of course, why none of these election boards performed such audits, even though they were required by law. There’s not one of these battleground states that would not have been cast into doubt by such an audit.

        This is true even if there was not one single fraudulent vote cast anywhere in the United States. The margin of error on signature verifications is much, much larger than the margin of the votes.

        1. For those who were not aware, Governor Gavin Newsom contested the signatures on the recall petition. After an audit, 20% of the signatures were thrown out.

          That number for the California 2020 election? Less than 1%.

        2. Seems like the better solution is to tell the media, “We’re conducting a full audit for a month after Election Day to ensure everything is valid. When we have the winner determined, we’ll let you know. No, we aren’t going to tell you ‘how the count is going,’ either, and if someone leaks that, the entire team will be replaced and we’ll start all over for another month.”

          1. Again my question, what does a full audit mean? What work are you planning to do? Remember there are numerous checks done on ballots through the entire process. Machine are tested before and after and a percentage are audited by a recount of ballots.

            So what would your audit do that is different that the normal checks?

            1. Anything that makes the Democrats squeal. If they’re crying about it, it means it’s going into something they want to keep hidden.

            2. No there are not checks done theoughout the process. In many of the counties in question judges had to order election workers to allow conservative vote watchers to be near the table.

              Again youre lying and ignorant.

            3. That’s easy! You totally need to examine the ballots for traces of bamboo! Or else you haven’t done a serious audit.

        3. This is a fair request and if a company put up a plan to do this I would have no problem with such an audit.

          By the way, I have for a long time suggested that signatures are a poor verification device and have suggested PIN as an alternative. I suspect that signature will remain the standard.

      4. Lol. Another gaslight about the Maricopa audit. First. It isnt over. Second they’ve already shown large count differentials from envelope count number and number of ballots, with the number of ballots being lower. Lastly they just started going over adjudicated ballots this week.

        Youre dumb and lying it seems.

        1. Let’s see how that audit turns out. I’ve been watching how that progresses. What I find striking is the further the audit team gets, the more resistance from the County board, and even the DOJ. That level of interest and resistance is very….peculiar.

          1. I agree. The audit team has made mistakes. But the pressure to stop counting exponentially increased as they got near time to review adjudicated ballots. The reason they are taking so long is they use 3 independent teams to count each set of ballots. They only do a deep audit when 2 of the 3 teams disagree.

  29. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1397045628941873158?s=19

    Those who claim that power is the prime motivation are confessing more than accusing. [Link]

    1. So much context, so much nuance amongst the woke.
      All of these intersecting nexuses that only they can divine, and somehow those divinations always come up such that they are allowed to do whatever they want and have unrestricted power, and their enemies are allowed to do nothing.

  30. There would be no need to shrink the IRS if Congress did its job and cleaned up the tax code. Why do we need a large IRS, simple, the tax code is far to complicated.

    1. The irony is that the “complications” in the tax laws are intentionally put there to allow big campaign donors corporations to avoid taxes.

      1. But if you utilize the “complications “, you are cheating.

        1. “We must close the complications loophole!”

    2. I agree. The best way to improve compliance is to drastically simplify the tax code.

    3. But its not about that, nor has it ever been about that. Its about hammering the lower/middle classes and targeting political enemies. This has nothing to do with getting more taxes from Billionaires because, as you said, they can only do that by altering the tax code.

  31. “The infrastructure talks stalled after Republicans said the Biden administration’s Friday counteroffer to Senate Republicans didn’t go far enough toward the GOP position. If that stalemate continues, Democrats may attempt to move on their own, using budget reconciliation rules to pass a package without needing any Republican votes.

    “We would like bipartisanship, but I don’t think we have a seriousness on the part of the Republican leadership to address the major crisis facing this country,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, which would assemble any one-party infrastructure spending package, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “If they’re not coming forward, we’ve got to go forward alone.””

    —-WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-divided-on-infrastructure-jan-6-commission-11621781690?

    The Republicans have maintained the same position on the infrastructure bill since before the election in November of 2020. The Republicans don’t want to spend so much money, and the Democrats, up until now, have been too timid to move forward without them. The political question behind whether this will pass with or without Republican participation is the question of whether the Democrats fear the wrath of the voters for spending so much money more so than the Republicans fear the wrath of the voters for NOT voting to spend that money. So far, the Senate Republicans haven’t budged on social spending in an infrastructure bill. The Republicans can legitimately run on budget restraint in 2022 if the Democrats go ahead without them.

    Even Susan Collins of Maine, the weakest Republican link in the Senate, is saying that she won’t support the social spending on the elderly and the poor as part of Biden’s infrastructure bill. Meanwhile, Biden and the Democrats also want to include spending on renewable energy and pay for it with taxes on fossil fuels, etc. They’re basically breaking the Green New Deal up into smaller pieces and tying those pieces to various bills–and this infrastructure bill is part of that. Ultimately, it doesn’t look like the Republicans are anywhere near being willing to sign onto any of these bills.

    And the Democrats have the means to pass these spending bills through budget reconciliation without any Republican support whatsoever. I’d love to think that the Democrats are so afraid of the repercussions of passing these unpopular bills in 2022, that they won’t be passed, but I think it’s more likely that the Democrat leadership fears a revolt from within their own party against the leadership if they don’t elect to pass these bills, anyway, without any Republican support whatsoever.

    And that’s what I think will happen, eventually: The Democrats will pass it, Republicans will run against it, and some of my sillier fellow libertarians, here, will pretend that there’s really no difference between Democrats and Republican’s because neither of them are true Libertarians.

    1. I am not sure that you are correct that the bill is unpopular. The bill seems to have a lot of support except in among Republicans in Congress. I don’t see see a lot of blow back from the public for fixing roads. I suspect that helping people with childcare and taking care of older parents will sell in 2022. I would add that I am skeptical of all the spending and would like to see more paid for in these bills, but I don’t think my concerns are reflected by many these days.

      1. If the Green New Deal were popular, the Democrats wouldn’t be breaking it up into smaller bills and trying to pass it on the sly. If the Green New Deal were popular, the Democrats would put it all into a bill called, “The Green New Deal”, and they’d pass it without any Republican support–and hold public signing ceremony to so they’d get all the credit. I certainly don’t think the Green New Deal becomes popular because you break part of it off and call it “infrastructure”.

        And if more spending is popular in the sense that more than 51% of the voters support more of it right now, I’d be surprised. Regardless, I’m sure it isn’t popular with Republicans or swing voters, and the election results in 2022 will be decided by the extent to which the Republican base is fired up and the extent to which swing voters are upset at the Democrats because of Biden’s and the Democrats’ radical agenda. In a president’s first midterm, his party almost always takes it on the chin in House, and chances are that the Republicans will retake both the House and Senate come 2022.

        The question is who bad the damage is likely to be, and if even the Democrats (through their reluctant behavior) seem to think there’s a political price to pay at the polls for passing a huge spending bill like this without any Republican support, then I think it’s fair to say that they’re worried about the unpopularity of this bill come November of 2022, don’t you?

        1. The question is who bad the damage is likely to be, and if even the Democrats (through their reluctant behavior) seem to think there’s a political price to pay at the polls for passing a huge spending bill like this without any Republican support, then I think it’s fair to say that they’re worried about the unpopularity of this bill come November of 2022, don’t you?

          “Democrats, Despite Republican Opposition, Demonstrate Principled Spending Restraint!” – Reason

      2. Seems is the key word only you didnt recognize it.

  32. “Conservative groups have launched a campaign of TV ads, social media messages and emails to supporters criticizing the proposal to hire nearly 87,000 new IRS workers over the next decade to collect money from tax cheats,” notes Politico.

    Those evil Conservatives. Standing in the way of Biden’s jobs creation program.

    1. Again, those conservatives did their part (and not alone) to make the tax code complicated. By the way is defending tax cheats a good look? I mean, I pay my taxes why shouldn’t every pay theirs?

      1. Welcome to libertarianism 101.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft

        I know what you’re thinking, “Why are you talking about libertarianism at a bein-pensant progressive publication like Reason?”. But believe it or not, Reason magazine was once a libertarian publication.
        No, seriously. It really was.

        1. Yeah but then virgina postrel left and it stared going down hill.

      2. Legally utilizing the tax code to your benefit and arranging your finances to minimize your tax burden is not cheating.

        1. No it is certainly not cheating. But if your hiring a high price tax lawyer to figure out your taxes, then the IRS is going to have to have a similar staff to check them. Simply idea simplify the tax code, reduce IRS staff and put the lawyers out of business.

          1. Flat tax.

          2. >No it is certainly not cheating.
            So why did you call them Tax cheats asshat?

  33. https://twitter.com/AlexBerenson/status/1397193347928838149?s=19

    Hey bluechecks! Remember how you deleted your crazy apocalyptic predictions about bodies stacked like cordwood in Florida/Georgia/your red state of choice?

    Time to scrub the ones calling the lab leak a “conspiracy theory.”

    Quick like a bunny! Screenshots are forever.

  34. The infrastructure bill isn’t unpopular and the American people very much support raising taxes on incomes over $400k to pay for it.

    1. The American people very much support free beer, too.

      1. “Every American child gets a pony”

        1. Or every billionaire get a sport stadium.

          1. More spending will result in fewer stadiums?

    2. Idiots like you think 80 billion in taxes pays for 2.3 trillion in spending.

      1. They could sieze the combined wealth of every billionaire on the planet and it still wouldn’t cover a fraction of Nancy’s spending in the last six months.

        Stroozle thinks that math is hard.

        1. You’re not even an American you crazy piece of shit. The fuck is wrong with you?

          1. Your bigotry is disgusting.

            1. Says a fascist liar.

              1. “Not even an American”–and I’m a fascist?!

                LOL

                You’re a disgrace.

          2. Shit attempt at distraction.
            What does my nationality have to do with the fact that you can’t even make basic calculations?

          3. Math is the same in other countries.

            1. Unfortunately, before long we’ll need other countries to do our math for us because here it’s racist.

          4. Mother’s lament is far better on monetary policy than you. You probably think Canada has a syrup/yak based economy.
            Which we all know not to be true. Even though they have a strategic maple syrup reserve

            1. We don’t actually have a strategic maple syrup reserve, that’s just what we tell others in order to keep the evil pancake men at bay.

          5. Pod….give us a collective break, will ya? There is only so much stupid the commentariat can handle at any one time. You tipped the scale.

          6. Have you ever been to another country? Everyone pays attention to American politics.

    3. Got to be a parody account.

    4. You’re trying waaaay to hard to convince yourself, there, Pod.

      1. Is that Shrike?

        Has anyone seen Palin’s BP lately?

        I assumed I don’t see him because he’s muted, but maybe they kicked him off again when they added the mute button?

        1. No, that’s Pod. Shriek only drops in once in a while these days because “working” from home over the last year has allowed him a lot more time to jerk off to kiddie porn.

  35. > Seven Republican lawmakers in the Maine House of Representatives lost their committee posts on Monday after they were recorded entering a legislative building without masks despite rules requiring them

    No shirt, no shoes, no service. These twatwads think because they were elected they can just ignore the rules? Time to issue a baton to the Sergeant of Arms.

    Oh, they’re Republicans. That’s okay then…

    1. Brandy thinks we can eliminate the voting power of icky people for not following nonsensical rules.

      Sounds right.

      In other arbitrary rules you want in place to make sure your perceived enemies can’t use their elective powers?

    2. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

      Are those really the rules? Because they don’t seem to apply to members of a certain political party.

    3. Did they say they thought they didn’t need to follow the rules because they were elected, or are you just making that up?

      1. “…or are you just making that up?”
        Rhetorical, I’ll assume.

        1. Maybe they thought they didn’t need to follow the rules because the rules are stupid?

          1. Participating in an institution that exists for the purpose of making rules that everyone is expected to comply with.

            1. Versus breaking rules they opposed that are stupid?

              You’re not one of those people who thinks Ashli Babbitt should have been shot for breaking the rules, are you?

              1. You are trying to equate Ashli Babbitt to a Congressperson, a person who joined a legislative body, not following the rules made by that legislative body.

                Bringing up Babbitt is a rhetorical dodge on your part.

                1. Not really, but that’s actually exactly what you did with your Ted Cruz analogy upthread.

    4. Now do the governor of Michigan.

    5. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

      We made a big deal out of these alliterative signs popping up around the same time as the Civil Rights Movement and the Counterculture Movement for a reason. That’s because the prevailing theories hold that these signs arose as a reaction to these movements.

      Remember that there was, and is, no federal law prohibiting you from not wearing shoes. However, there is federal law preventing you from discriminating on race, gender, etc. Private businesses cannot deny you service for, say, not being white. This is known.

      So, you know that in 1964, America made a long-time-coming leap in the way of civil rights. That’s right, we’re talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Of course, not everyone was on board with everyone having equal rights. Heck, a lot of people still aren’t on board with it now.

      But with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, businesses could no longer turn away customers for the color of their skin.

      But they could turn them away for something else.

      See, it’s no secret that in the 1960s, shoes were a sign of wealth. Not everybody could afford them, and if you couldn’t afford shoes, you didn’t wear shoes. Here’s the thing, it’s also not a secret that historically (and currently) minority communities are much poorer.

      So, businesses used “no shirt, no shoes, no service” as a way to sidestep anti-discrimination laws. Technically, they weren’t discriminating against marginalized groups, they were discriminating against people who didn’t have shoes. It just so happened that not having shoes meant you were poor, and it was way more likely you wouldn’t be rich enough to own shoes if you were part of a minority group. Thus, businesses were able to maintain a racist status quo, without really saying so.

      SSDD

  36. ” . . . and quietly reassigned to less prestigious duties . . . ”

    I lack the imagination to see what could be less prestigious.

  37. Rand Paul appears to be asking Twitter to deplatform Richard Marx (a vapid pop singer from the 1980s), but 1) He doesn’t call out Marx by name and 2) I think Paul is really just drawing attention to Twitter’s hypocrisy.

    You see, Rand Paul received a package of white powder with a message containing blatantly violent threats, and Paul appears to be blaming it on the tweets of Richard Marx [a “C” list celebrity].

    “The package also featured an image of Paul in bandages with a gun to his head. The text accompanying the image stated: “I’ll finish what your neighbor started you motherf——

    —Violent threat against Paul

    https://thehill.com/homenews/news/555202-rand-paul-receives-suspicious-package-containing-white-powder-at-home

    “I’ll say it again: If I ever meet Rand Paul’s neighbor I’m going to hug him and buy him as many drinks as he can consume”

    —-Richard Max via Twitter

    “I take these threats immensely seriously. As a repeated target of violence, it is reprehensible that Twitter allows C-list celebrities to encourage violence against me and my family.”

    —-Rand Paul via Twitter

    Is there a line between a politician suggesting that Twitter deplatform someone like Richard Marx and the government violating the First Amendment?

    Yes.

    Does Paul’s tweet cross that line?

    I don’t think so.

    There isn’t any associated threat against Twitter in that tweet, and to the best of my knowledge, Paul hasn’t said anything about breaking Twitter up if they don’t crack down on free speech. He isn’t exactly acting as a private party, here, but he isn’t threatening to do something to Twitter if they don’t deplatform Richard Marx in line with their policies either. Politicians are allowed to have opinions about the policies of private media outlets. They just aren’t allowed to threaten those outlets with penalties for not doing their bidding.

    1. Just think, even if the powder is talcum powder, it is now still an attack, due to cancer.

      1. I invoke Poe’s law.

        Are you serious?

        1. I mean, has this happened IRL?

          Was someone actually charged with assault (rather than making violent threats) for sending talcum powder because it’s considered a carcinogen?

          1. I think the reference is to one of the most biologically implausible lawsuits in human history.

            1. So it is a reference to a real event?

              1. https://www.asbestos.com/news/2021/02/24/johnsons-billions-talc-settlements/

                An elderly woman received $325 million from Johnson & Johnson because she got ovarian cancer. The claim was that she put Johnson and Johnson baby powder on her nether region every day for decades.

                The biological plausibility of talcum powder placed on your nethers having any impact on your ovaries whatsoever is extremely small. The biological probability of an octogenarian getting cancer is extremely high. Our courts do not seem to grock probabilities.

                So Johnson and Johnson is putting together a multibillion-dollar fund to give anyone who uses their products a settlement if they get cancer. This one is far dumber than the breast implant one, which has now been proven to be a farce. I mean, the company is still out of business… But the purported disease mechanism has been long since disproven.

                1. The biological plausibility of talcum powder placed on your nethers having any impact on your ovaries whatsoever is extremely small. The biological probability of an octogenarian getting cancer is extremely high. Our courts do not seem to grock probabilities.

                  Even at that, the issue isn’t/wasn’t talc but the fact that in the centuries of talc’s production and use, the asbestos contaminant was discovered and considered to be a carcinogen. Since ’73 talc-containing products have been required to test for asbestos contamination and most notably crayons have been the largest violator (with an approximate 3% contamination).

                  All this also sets aside that actual asbestos ‘poisoning’ typically reveals itself after a couple decades of *inhaling* relatively pure asbestos. If the elderly woman’s nether regions were inhaling the talc around them at a necessarily proportional rate, I’d suggest a more likely source of carcinogens.

              2. Ken there is no more J&J baby powder in America because litigation.

    2. ““I take these threats immensely seriously,” Paul said in a statement. “As a repeated target of violence, it is reprehensible that Twitter allows C-list celebrities to encourage violence against me and my family. Just this weekend Richard Marx called for violence against me and now we receive this powder filled letter.”

      —-Politico

      https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/24/suspicious-package-rand-paul-490640

      I take back what I said about Paul not calling Richard Marx out by name. The Hill apparently cut off the last part of the tweet.

      I would be interested to see if Richard Marx’s tweet was in the context of Paul’s recent questioning of Dr. Fauci’s claims. If so, Rand Paul appears to be hitting a nerve. The progressives really don’t want him to keep pursuing this.

      1. Saying that you want to celebrate with and purchase libations for someone who does violence to your political opponents is not a call to violence. It is a metaphor for political opposition in terms that are starkly personal.

        Saying “we are going to continue fighting for our cause” is a call to violence, not a metaphor for continuing political action.

        This should all be perfectly obvious.

        1. This should all be perfectly obvious.

          I hate to give a politician too much credit, but Paul is too smart to be linking Marx to “I’ll finish what your neighbor started you motherf——” completely spuriously/speciously.

          Moreover, half the point is that Twitter’s redactions and bans are selective opposition/endorsement of “I’d buy that guy a beer.” comments.

    3. Politicians are allowed to have opinions about the policies of private media outlets. They just aren’t allowed to threaten those outlets with penalties for not doing their bidding.

      If the Federal Government can’t expect/demand a corporation abide by either The Consitution or their own TOS, who exactly holds the big stick?

      Additionally, this is only a fraction of the story. If Rand Paul openly calling for Twitter to abide by their own TOS in the face of personal threats of violence doesn’t work but Joe Lieberman making shadowy back office phone calls can get Wikileaks booted off multiple platforms across multiple industries for not directly threatening anyone does work, who’s rather actively wielding the big stick?

  38. CAIR & @ThePCJF Win ‘Major Victory’ in Federal Lawsuit Against #Georgia’s Anti-#Israel Boycott Law; Court Rules Anti-#BDS Law Violates the #FirstAmendment

    Good. Government must remain entirely viewpoint neutral and should not be supporting one side over the other. Unless it’s expressing support for BLM, LGBTQ, or #FreePalestine.

  39. https://twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/1397194424589881346?s=19

    How do we learn from historical atrocities and prevent them from happening again if we’re not allowed to reference them?

  40. “Man who allegedly refused to wear mask on flight out of Oakland faces $9,000 fine”
    […]
    “A man who refused to pull a face mask over his nose on a Southwest Airlines flight from Oakland to Houston in February faces a $9,000 fine, the Federal Aviation Administration said…”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/Man-who-allegedly-refused-to-wear-mask-on-flight-16199532.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    Remember when mask use was subject to ‘guidelines’?

  41. https://twitter.com/USEmbassyPH/status/1397160857835016193?s=19

    May 25 marks one year since the brutal murder of George Floyd by police—the result of an officer kneeling on his neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds. The U.S. joins countries who are doing the difficult work of confronting systemic racism. #BlackLivesMatter [pic]

    1. That’s not real….

  42. I’m glad we’re finally allowed to acknowledge what everyone has known for a year about the virus origins. Now can we please get an answer as to WHY they were suppressing the information and punishing everyone who spoke out about it at the wrong time? No? Well, it was worth a shot.

    1. I did not know. When prominent scientists, not political hacks like Fauci but actual scientists doing actual genetic research on virology, come out and tell me that the genetics are definitive that it was not derived from the strains at the laboratory, I considered the matter settled.

      It turns out that they were simply parroting what they were told to say by the researchers involved and by Chinese versions of political hacks.

      And yes, there damned well should be an investigation into why our government representatives and these eminent scientists flat out lied about this.

      1. The fact that the Chinese had the virus’s whole genetic code ready to present to the WHO after reports of the outbreak came out, should have been a giant red flag that this may not have been an organically produced virus. And as Jerryskids pointed out months ago, the fact that this popped up in the same area as the lab where they do this kind of research was another giant red flag.

        1. The red flag is so huge you have to go to the moon to be able to see the whole thing.

      2. I did not know. When prominent scientists, not political hacks like Fauci but actual scientists doing actual genetic research on virology, come out and tell me that the genetics are definitive that it was not derived from the strains at the laboratory, I considered the matter settled.

        Again, your fault for considering men who’s institutions have a long history of human rights violations incapable of lying because they wear robes.

  43. “Burn it to the ground and start over.”:

    In our conversation, Stevens exploded with loathing for the party he once faithfully (and lucratively) served. He rejected the common view that Trump had hijacked the GOP. No, he explained, the triumph of know-nothing Trumpism marked the culmination of an internal conflict that had existed for decades between the party’s “dark side” and its professed ideals. Even William F. Buckley Jr., often hailed as a grand public intellectual and the founding father of the modern conservative movement, was “a stone-cold racist” in the 1950s, Stevens pointed out. (Buckley at that time considered white people more “advanced” and more fit to govern.)

    “A lot of us in the party liked to believe the dark side was a recessive gene, but it’s a dominant theme,” Stevens, a seventh-­generation Mississippian who was named for Confederate Gen. Jeb Stuart, told me. “And it’s all about race. The Republican Party is a white party and there still are more white people than non-white people.” So that is whom the party aims at—even if this will eventually be a losing proposition as the nation’s demographics continue to shift. Ronald Reagan achieved a landslide victory in 1980 by bagging 56 percent of white voters; 28 years later, John McCain lost with 55 percent of white voters. Perhaps the party’s fixation on white voters can work one more time with Trump in 2020. “But we’re talking about the Confederacy—literally,” Stevens said.

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/08/racism-republican-party-stuart-stevens/

    1. Woof, the projection in that article can be seen from Pluto.

    2. the dogs hear the dog whistles.

    3. Are we supposed to support Biden and the Democrats, socialism and the Green New Deal, an assault on our gun rights, not to mention lockdown orders, higher taxes, and outrageous amounts of spending–because of William F. Buckley, the progeny of Jeb Stuart, and because of the Confederacy, “literally”?

      Does anyone understand the convoluted thinking going on here?

      Is there any thinking behind this at all?

      1. How about – DON’T SUPPORT EITHER? Don’t fall for the false choice dichotomy? FFS how many times does this have to be pointed out to you, here, at a libertarian site?

        1. “How about – DON’T SUPPORT EITHER?”

          See, you’re just supposed to sit on the fence and everything will work out after your ass gets sore.

          1. I’ve tried fence sitting and taking sides. Doesn’t seem to make any difference either way.

          2. You’re only supposed to sit on the fence if you disagree with chemjeff.

        2. You can stop your lying about being neutral anytime jeff.

          Find 3 posts of yours in the last month criticizing the left.

        3. Thank God we had Jo. She’ll fix everything.

          1. Whether through ignorance or pandering. She supported critical race theory.

      2. Wasn’t the Confederacy the brainchild of the Democrats?

        1. Yes, sure. But this line of attack is just about as dumb as the idea that white people need to pay reparations because some of their ancestors made money from slavery. Their ideas are terrible enough now. No need to dredge up the past.

      3. “Are we supposed to support Biden and the Democrats, socialism and the Green New Deal, an assault on our gun rights, not to mention lockdown orders, higher taxes, and outrageous amounts of spending…”

        This is a libertarian website. Most of us are supposedly libertarians. What about supporting the Libertarian Party. Or registering independent, and not giving your allegiance to any party.

        1. Youre not one though.

        2. Yeah I voted L in every election since Harry Browne until 2020. It was a pretty easy way to virtue signal, to use the current vernacular. Not sure I’m a libertarian anymore. Not because I’ve changed but because it seems somebody changed the definition of the word. When the choice is full on leftist tyranny and endless war or somebody else I pick somebody else who might actually win.

          1. ☝︎

        3. I’ve seen so many competing definitions of libertarian. In no particular order.

          Classic liberal
          Non-Aggression Principle
          Self-ownership
          Free minds and free markets
          civil liberties + capitalism
          reason itself as a means to capitalism
          Individualism
          People who hate taxes but want to smoke pot!

          They’re all valid in various ways.

          I’m partial to the idea that a libertarian is anyone who thinks we should be free to make choices for ourselves.

          But equating libertarian identity with party affiliation is dumb.

          1. Then why are you always trying to argue that the only sensible libertarian way is to throw ones support behind Republicans.

              1. The two parties in our two-party system change every now and then. With the recent split of the Republican Party we may be at one of those cusps right now.

    4. “…No, he explained, the triumph of know-nothing Trumpism marked the culmination of an internal conflict that had existed for decades between the party’s “dark side” and its professed ideals…”

      A TDS-addled shit assigns himself the role’ of savior! And equally TDS-addled lefty shit goes for it!
      Imagine my —- expectation.

  44. Bengali Call Girls in Kolkata Offer the Best Independent Escorts in Kolkata.

    We are an organization that provides continuous service from young waitresses in independent escorts in Kolkata and are waiting for your call. We are a wide range of people, and we are eager to move forward. With the development of business in this region of India, escort service agencies are employing excellent means to enter the market. People crosswise the nation and around the earth often paddle for work,
    https://bengalicallgirlsinkolkata.com/

    1. Pretty sure we’ve got better whores in this tread alone. Have you ever read a White Mike post?

  45. Connecting with Our Kolkata Escort Models!!

    Kolkata Escort Models!!

    Welcome to Kolkata model escort, we are one of the top escorts promotion services companies for those who expect the best out of life. We promote fashion models, pageant winners, students. Most of our models speak Indian common languages.

    Young models are the highlight of the Kolkata escort service who has a background of all flavors like college girls, airline and BPO employees, and celebrities. You ask for an escort and we have a tailor-made Kolkata ready to serve you. Our escort service is popularly known as” Destination”

    https://bengalicallgirlsinkolkata.com/2021/05/25/connecting-with-our-kolkata-escort-models/

    1. You can’t write about sex workers, constantly, and not expect to attract their spambots.

      1. Not sex workers. It says right there, escorts.
        Pure as the driven snow.

        1. Pretty sure they just show you around and hail taxis.

          1. Quoted from the Site:

            Among all these types of sex, anal sex is a method that boys want to, but you can’t have this anal sex with your wife or you will be ashamed to tell your wife.

            How would the wife not know you’re having anal sex with her?

            1. Tiny dick?

              1. Now you know why I’m mystified.

      2. Mmmm…Spambots! Wouldn’t have to worry about lubrication.

  46. >>More than 50 percent of adults in 25 states, D.C., and Guam have been fully vaccinated.

    can’t tell if this means the terrorists won.

  47. How to Use the Escort Service in Kolkata?

    We provide the best escort service in Kolkata. Yes, I will tell you how many times and how many times the Kolkata escorts. Yes, we cater to our clients’ sexual needs and our feelings and desires for girls. We are one of the top three institutions for independent Kolkata escort providers throughout the Kolkata escorts service area. We have a group of female escorts. These escorts for women in Kolkata are well trained and can bring pleasure and relaxation to clients. They are independent women and enjoy complete freedom in their work
    https://bengalicallgirlsinkolkata.com/2021/05/17/how-to-use-the-escort-service-in-kolkata/

  48. https://twitter.com/e2hd7a/status/1381448903854338048?s=19

    Black Lives Matter™: Race-based Socialism.

    Why are there so many ideological similarities between Black Lives Matter™ and Nazism?
    [Link]

    1. Is there a prize?
      I will guess because the only difference between communism and fascism is where the actual title to the means of production lies. With communism, the state owns; with fascism, corporations own, but are directed by the state. Effective difference, none.

  49. https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1397202354584367108?s=19

    If the corporate press says something is true, you should assume the opposite. Then wait a few months and have some tea…
    [Link]

  50. https://theweek.com/speedreads/984088/john-oliver-humiliates-local-tv-stations-sexual-wellness-blanket-sponsored-content

    Great article about Sponsored Content in local news. Evidently it is very easy to get your product inserted into otherwise serious newscasts, reported on in a serious tone, in order to generate business for your company. It damages the credibility of the news outlet when this happens. John Oliver has a very funny video about it.

    1. Fat Boy’s back regurgitating his lefty boo agitprop again.

      1. Did you even read the article? It has nothing to do with being “lefty”. It is about news outlets selling out their integrity.

        1. Fuckin’ LOL at you thinking that advertisers can buy time on any platform willing to sell it to them is some kind of revelation.

          1. Just watch the video. The advertisement is in the guise of a news segment, hosted by news anchors who otherwise present serious news on that same station.

            1. I’m not sure why you think pointing out that news outlets have no integrity is some kind of controversial topic.

              1. When you turn on the local news to listen to the weather report, is your immediate reaction that “he’s lying to me”?

                1. No, my reaction is “well, that’s probably what will happen, but we’ll see.” And the weather has fuck all to do with sponsored content.

                  The fact you apparently think news people should be unquestioningly trusted, and stuff like this shows what a bunch of charlatans and whores they really are, is the most hilarious part of this outrage theater you’re trying to gin up.

                  1. I never said “unquestioningly trusted”. My issue is that these reporters lend their credibility to dubious products in sponsored content, credibility that they earn by ALSO credibly reporting on other serious news topics.

                    Frankly part of the reason why you are so argumentative on this is because John Oliver is a leftie and you are going to take the opposite point of view of whatever a leftie says because you’re a reactionary moron.

                    1. Frankly part of the reason why you are so argumentative on this is because John Oliver is a leftie and you are going to take the opposite point of view of whatever a leftie says because you’re a reactionary moron.

                      ^When you quote John Oliver as saying fellow broadcasters are lying whores without the faintest glimmer of higher intelligence or self-awareness.

                  2. My issue is that these reporters lend their credibility to dubious products in sponsored content, credibility that they earn by ALSO credibly reporting on other serious news topics.

                    And my point is that they are already whores, so I’m not going to get worked up into a lather over this like you think we should.

                    Frankly part of the reason why you are so argumentative on this is because John Oliver is a leftie and you are going to take the opposite point of view of whatever a leftie says because you’re a reactionary moron.

                    Just because you’re constantly simping for lefties doesn’t make them credible.

                  3. The fact you apparently think news people should be unquestioningly trusted, and stuff like this shows what a bunch of charlatans and whores they really are, is the most hilarious part of this outrage theater you’re trying to gin up.

                    The Today Show transitioned from “reporting the news with sponsors” to “promoting albums, hocking celebrity books and movies, and beauty/fashion tips… with Al Roper on the side” 2 decades ago. And I know this despite never having watched more than 5-10 minutes of The Today Show maybe ever.

                    1. Today was the first program of its genre when it premiered with original host Dave Garroway. The program blended national news headlines, interviews with newsmakers, lifestyle features, other light news and gimmicks (including the presence of the chimpanzee J. Fred Muggs who served as the show’s mascot during the early years), and local news updates from the network’s stations.

                      Ah, so more than 50 yrs. ago and at its founding, the program was effectively “news of, for, and by chimps”.

                    2. Keep in mind, this format was baked-in early on to cater to the trad-family construct–they’d do the hard news coverage and interviews in the first hour, before hubby went to work, and the rest of the show consisted of the fluff pieces and lifestyle/commercial promotion bits for the wives.

            2. That never happens on the internet either.

    2. The only humiliation is by people thinking John Oliver has ever humiliated anybody.

      But since you’re a sophisticated you think he is brilliant.

    3. I saw this and it was great, if not a bit cringeworthy watching the blanket stories. And they bought the time for so cheap. I have seen these before on the news and have always recognized that this is as just advertisement. Just like you see product placement in TV shows. Just watch Top Chef some time.

      These ads on the news and the one in the back of magazines are the same. I wonder do they really work? Are people that gullible?

    4. Yeah, so does South Park. Like 5 years ago. Haha.

  51. https://www.thedailybeast.com/clark-county-nevada-gop-cancels-meeting-amid-fear-of-proud-boy-insurgency

    Well well well. Republicans with Guns get a little testy with each other.

    1. Lol. You just claimed you were neutral 3 posts ago.

    2. Suddenly, chemtard radical food vacuum thinks people owning guns is problematic.

    3. I always find this interesting when 2A advocates are reluctant to let people carrying guns get near them.

  52. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/tucker-carlson-theyre-trying-change-population-united-states-and-they-hate-it-when-you-say

    Congratulations. Fox News and Tucker Carlson has successfully sanitized and made presentable the alt-right White Genocide hypothesis and made it a part of mainstream conservative thought. Richard Spencer wins after all!

    1. Lol. You just claimed you were neutral 4 posts ago.

  53. https://twitter.com/cliftonaduncan/status/1397213563782111238?s=19

    Hydroxychloroquine has been on the market seven decades, yet only recently did we become concerned with its dangerous side effects; conversely, the mRNA shots have been on the market only seven months, and we’re expected not to worry about its possible side effects at all.

    1. It morphed from the most dangerous thing developed at the behest of the Trump administration to celebrities singing its praises.

  54. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/trump-s-stranglehold-gop-death-trap-american-democracy-n1268314

    [The Republican Party] is more and more becoming the party of angry white nationalist and faux patriots afraid of their future and stewing in their own victimhood as they dine on a steady diet of GOP cancel culture, conspiracies and lies.

    Yup, pretty much.

    1. Yup, pretty much.

      Like I said above, Fat Boy’s regurgitating his lefty boo agitprop.

      1. The editorial was written by Michael Steele, former GOP Chair.

        1. carries zero cred.

        2. Who is basically a simp for the Democrats now, just like you are.

          1. Yeah yeah I get it, anyone who doesn’t worship Trump is a “leftie”.

            1. token 2009 choice for O. pushed affirmative action when running whatever state he’s from – Maryland?

              1. The fact that Steele is running narratives for people who threw Oreos at him during his run for governor is about as close to being a political cuck as you can get.

            2. Yeah yeah, I get it, anyone who criticizes your lefty boos is a racist.

        3. The Republican party sucked when he was in charge.

    2. Lol. You just claimed you were neutral 5 posts ago.

      I mean. Choose less lefty sources than an ignorant leftist comedian, mother Jones, msnbc, and the daily beast if you’re claiming neutrality.

      1. Next he will link to jacobian

    3. You’re not going to make any friends quoting msnbc.

      1. Watch sarcasmic repeat Jeff’s arguments later today not realize it.

  55. “Warren’s legislation would remove the agency’s funding from the annual appropriations process, so that it wouldn’t change based on the year-to-year whims of Congress.”

    After all, the whims of Lizzie Warren are so much better.

    1. she seems literally unwhimsical.

      1. Not true. She even drinks a beer now and then. I saw her do it once.

        1. what beer *does* the northeast Subaru set drink?

          1. No idea. But they’re certain that it’s better than the beer consumed by the likes of “those people”.

            1. Keystone light here so they’re probably right.

              1. I’ll pray for your soul.

              2. yikes! 1988 called.

          2. You should see this part of MT. There were 12 Subaru’s just on the block I parked on. It’s some weird Subaru cult that shows status affiliation symbol around here.

            1. Greenpeace stickers and New Hampshire plates?

              ’92 Subaru by Fountains of Wayne

            2. in Texas we call them Lesbarus

            3. They are supposed to be great in the snow.

              1. Lesbians? I honestly didn’t know they were into cryophilia,

                1. It’s all about whether the U-Hauls can still move around in the white stuff.

                  Though their leg hair does help in cooler climates.

          3. Beer? Don’t you mean spiked seltzer?

            1. It is amazing how unfunny you are.

          4. Heady Topper, stuff from Lawson’s and Clown Shoes if they’ve any taste. Plenty of great beer up there.

            Warren seems like shrill, untouched glass of house Sauvignon Blanc to me.

  56. Fully vaccinated air travelers coming to the United States from abroad, including U.S. citizens, are still required to have a negative SARS-CoV-2 viral test result or documentation of recovery from COVID-19 before they board a flight to the United States.

    International travelers arriving in the United States are still recommended to get a SARS-CoV-2 viral test 3-5 days after travel regardless of vaccination status.
    https://wapexclusive.com ,Fully vaccinated travelers do not need to self-quarantine in the United States following international travel.”

  57. “NetChoice vice president Carl Szabo comments on Florida’s new social media law”

    How exactly does preventing the picking of winners and losers empower government to pick winners and losers?

    1. Check your premise, how exactly does S230 prevent Congress, any Congress, from picking winners and losers?

  58. For Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, stepping over the line is the point

    https://news.yahoo.com/for-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-stepping-over-the-line-is-the-point-210258643.html

    Another word for this is demagoguery. Appealing to the victimhood among her base.

    1. And the nut cases around here will tell us that marginally lower tax rates is totally worth flirting with politicians who talk of succession and who forge giant lies about the legitimacy of elections.

      What they really mean is that they don’t care about having a constitutional republic if it means they have to share political power (sometimes, when they lose in spite of their electoral affirmative action) with brown people, people who live in cities, jews, atheists, gays, and so forth (collectively referred to as “communists”).

      Sure, it seems like they want to break up the union or get rid of effective elections, but that’s a risk they’re willing to take to stick it to the libs! Destroy the constitutional republic to own the libs! Epic!

      1. ^believes Omar, Tlaib, Cortez, et.al should be expelled from congress by the opposing party^

        What’s that? You don’t?

        DOL = OhLookMarketThugs

      2. >>giant lies

        you don’t know this.

        >>What they really mean

        you certainly don’t know this.

      3. I largely agree. The real crisis on Team Red is that they are fundamentally growing more and more skeptical of pluralism. And it goes back to the whole Real Murican schtick that has been a part of right-wing discourse for a while know. Remember this line from Sarah Palin?

        We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.

        The farmer in rural Iowa is more authentically an American than some degenerate urbanite even if they both are nominally citizens. That is a prevailing view on Team Red now. The voices of the “real Americans” should count more than the voices of everyone else (“communists”). It’s THEIR country, not ours, and if THEY lose, then it is the result of fraud or usurpation, it can’t possibly be a legitimate result.

        1. The farmer in rural Iowa is more authentically an American than some degenerate urbanite even if they both are nominally citizens. That is a prevailing view on Team Red now.

          At least the farmer in rural Iowa actually likes this country regardless of who’s running it. The degenerate urbanite only likes it when they people who vote with them are in charge.

          Hell, I can walk into any lecture hall on just about any college campus in the nation and listen all day to how much this country sucks and the people who don’t vote Democrat are ignorant hillbillies.

          Being a typical lefty-simping piece of shit that you are, you don’t get at all that quite a bit of that animus has been well and truly earned.

          1. There we go. People who don’t vote for Republicans are not just wrong, but America-haters. That is the poison within Team Red right now.

            1. People who don’t vote for Republicans are not just wrong, but America-haters.

              When you’re done genociding strawmen, try making an actual argument.

              1. At least the farmer in rural Iowa actually likes this country regardless of who’s running it. The degenerate urbanite only likes it when they people who vote with them are in charge.

                This is what you said, remember?

                Are the rural Iowa farmers more “authentically American” than the librul urbanites? Do the farmers represent “real America”? Was Sarah Palin right?

                1. And this is what you said:

                  The farmer in rural Iowa is more authentically an American than some degenerate urbanite even if they both are nominally citizens. That is a prevailing view on Team Red now.

                  I also said this:

                  Hell, I can walk into any lecture hall on just about any college campus in the nation and listen all day to how much this country sucks and the people who don’t vote Democrat are ignorant hillbillies.

                  That’s not an exaggeration. I attended an academic conference last fall (via Zoom) where this was the no-shit prevailing view, espoused often and forcefully, without a sliver of dissent, and it’s not the first time. Left-wing academics are some of the most provincial, tunnel-visioned, entitled people I’ve ever known in my life. They’re also the ones promoting the suppression of “far-right extremism” (i.e., anything that doesn’t agree with the left-liberal consensus), including a former professor of mine at ASU, Brooks Simpson, who recently cited Grant’s actions against the KKK as a model for the current left-wing administration and government bureaucracy to follow.

                  So fuck off with your “prevailing views” bullshit and demands that I or anyone else should have to just go along with it. Because I get to see up close and first-hand what these people actually think when they believe they around a group of like-minded individuals who all agree with them. If you want to continue simping for these folks, you go right ahead. But as far as I’m concerned, that puts us on opposite sides.

            2. You really can’t hold onto the neutrality facade for even 2 posts lol.

          2. “Love it or leave it” vs. “Not my President!” does betray a certain something. You really need to run in both crowds to appreciate the dichotomy.

        2. The farmer in rural Iowa is more authentically an American than some degenerate urbanite even if they both are nominally citizens.

          “My voters are better than your voters” is electoral politics in a nutshell. This exact same dynamic is on display among Democratic partisans as well: the [insert oppressed minority of choice]’s concerns are far more authentic than the astroturfed grievances of the peckerwood voting for those damnable Republicans.

          1. Notice how chemtard never complains about the left side of the spectrum doing this. It’s only Team Red who are the purveyors of partisan original sin in Fat Boy’s plaque-encrusted mind.

        3. The real crisis on Team Red is that they are fundamentally growing more and more skeptical of pluralism.

          Wait, I thought we already were a melting pot? When the WASPs let in the swarthy Spaniards, Eyetalians, and Mediterraneans did we not become a plurality? Or does that plurality not count because those immigrants’ skin was too light?

      4. What they really mean is that they don’t care about having a constitutional republic if it means they have to share political power (sometimes, when they lose in spite of their electoral affirmative action) with brown people, people who live in cities, jews, atheists, gays, and so forth (collectively referred to as “communists”).

        Sharing power is one thing. What I reject is the bad-faith, disingenuous argument that not going along with left-wing political policies and cultural shibboleths is being “divisive,” and that only “healing” can take place after left-wingers are in charge. The entire modern left-wing political paradigm is an exercise is social question-begging and unearned determinism, rooted in their Marxist-influenced paradigm of socio-economic apocalypticism.

        I don’t really see any need, for the sake of my own survival, that their view on society should be the civic consensus. If they aren’t willing to compromise or learn to live with people who don’t think like them, there’s no reason I should provide them with the same courtesy.

    2. > Appealing to the victimhood among her base

      As a Democrat lefty, thats the last thing you should be accusing anyone of.

      1. You got that right.

  59. Ha. Excellent.

    https://www.universalsuffragechurch.org/

    Under “Your Rights”:

    Church Holidays
    Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act guarantees that all employers of fifteen or more employees are required by law to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious holiday observances unless the employer can prove that accommodating the request will cause their business “undue hardship”. Some States also allow people to vote by mail if they are observing a religious holiday.

    Voter ID
    The Church of Universal Suffrage holds a religious objection against people being required to have their photo taken in order to exercise their sacred right to vote. If a lack of photo ID is preventing you from voting, many States recognize religious objections to photo voter ID laws.

    Church Rituals
    Providing assistance and resources to ease the suffering of anyone on the pilgrimage to perform the civic sacrament of voting is a holy ritual that we perform for people in need. Multiple State and Federal laws protect against Government interference of religious rituals.

    1. Ha. Excellent.

      Yeah, anything to keep Fat Boy from having to suffer the indignity of showing he can’t walk 40 feet into a building without heaving.

      1. You and your juvenile insults.

        1. You just insulted any and every religious person by marginalized their deeply held beliefs.

        2. You and your lefty simping.

      2. This is literally the guy mad at nuns for saying they were against paying for abortions.

        The only deeply held belief he has is that people should reduce his risk from his own obese life choices.

    2. Again, the lefties just can’t into critical thinking.

  60. “Several high-ranking Harris County law enforcement officers are accused of sexually assaulting and harassing their female colleagues under the guise of stopping human trafficking.”

    Blue on blue abuse has a certain poetry about it, and beyond providing schadenfreude it provides another insight into the inherent character of those who chose bullying and extorting others as a profession.

  61. https://twitter.com/David28787016/status/1397222681217536000?s=19

    It’s a coup, it’s regime change. It’s fraud, it’s crimes against humanity, genocide. It’s a power grab, transfer of wealth, economic warfare. It’s lies, deceit, it’s the rounding up and enslavement of people. It’s theft of rights and freedoms… it’s not a pandemic

  62. https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1397204363400163334?s=19

    We are in a War on Truth. Once you accept that you can start planning accordingly…

    “Bing vs. DuckDuckGo vs. Google [link]”

  63. No coverage of the Houston prosticops in mainstream media, except local affiliate stations. Instead, the media has a front page story about cops stopping traffic to let ducks cross the road.

  64. So . . .

    The treatment of these deputies is reprehensible and there’s no excuse for it and it should not be tolerated at all – the responsible cops need to be kicked permanently from all police work, no pension. That’s a minimum. Criminal charges for sexual assault should follow – along with charges for misuse of state funds, abuse of authority, etc. These guys need to go up against the wall.

    But

    BUT

    These women were voluntarily working a police sting on prostitutes. Something that shouldn’t be a crime in the first place. And they continued to do this even after knowing this wasn’t about ‘human trafficking’. It was just an excuse to fuck with vulnerable people. They took this assignment and continued in it because they were afraid to take a moral stand because of the personal cost they feared they would have to bear.

    They’re garbage human beings and I don’t really have any sympathy for them.

    Same as when a narc gets his ass beat down or a no-knock raider gets shot.

  65. This whole recount Stop The Steal movement has this Shakespearean tragic comedy vibe to me. It’s funny but it isn’t at the same time.

  66. https://twitter.com/AndrewKerrNC/status/1397268281321459712?s=19

    The Pentagon official overseeing efforts to root out extremism in the military said in 2019 that any supporter of Donald Trump unequivocally supports extremism and racism.

    “There is no room for nuance with this,” the official said.

    [Link]

    1. Notable that this is in *2019*. So, before any George Floyd protests and well before any civil unrest that took place on Feb. 6th, Trump was already being presumed guilty of violent extremism.

  67. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
    on this page….http://cash44.club/

Please to post comments