Who Will Pay for the Roads?

Taxpayers will pay the tab for spruced-up bridges and rebuilt freeways, doubling down on a worrying trend.


The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in November, shifts federal highway policy further away from the free market model of "user pays, user benefits" by requiring taxpayers to cough up more money for socialized roads.

The infrastructure law, supported by legislators of both major parties, allocates about $54 billion a year to federally subsidized highways, which account for a quarter of all public roads in the U.S. That's an increase from the roughly $45 billion included in the last highway bill. All told, the law authorizes $110 billion in new spending on roads and bridges.

Where will all that money come from? Not from road users, at least not directly.

Biden's (unevenly honored) commitment to not raising taxes on people earning less than $400,000 a year ruled out an increase in the federal gasoline tax. His administration also quickly nixed tolls and mileage-based user fees.

Instead, the money will come from federal government's general fund. That means taxpayers and/or buyers of federal debt will pay the tab for spruced-up bridges and rebuilt freeways, doubling down on a worrying trend.

For decades, federal highway spending was covered completely by federal gas tax revenue. Fuel taxes are not exactly a user fee, but they do at least charge people who drive for the roads they drive on.

An even more market-oriented solution would involve giving private companies a larger role in building and maintaining highways and city streets while shifting the costs of those projects onto motorists, truckers, and other road users through tolls.

Since 2008, however, a gap between gas tax revenue and mounting federal transportation spending has required a $157 billion infusion from the general fund. Even before the 2021 infrastructure bill was passed, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting that the gap would grow.

The infrastructure package did include a few modest reforms. It created a pilot program to study a mileage-based user fee, and it expanded private activity bonds, which help private companies raise capital for infrastructure projects. But the overall trend is toward more freeloading freeways.

NEXT: The Fuzzy Moral Line Between Drinkers and Bartenders

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why does Hawaii have an Interstate Highway and why is it a Federal Responsibility?

    1. I suspect the answer is democrats.

      1. Well the Democrat party did have both branches of Congress for 60 years (except for 6 or so where the R's held the House) but for those 60 years it was pretty much bilateral.

        And the Interstate is indeed a Wonder of the US, but Hawaii has no Interstate Road Traffic.

        1. What about Alaska? Between crossing the Alaska state line and crossing the Washington state line do motorists go round a boat?

          1. And Alaska... you are right

      2. The democrats should be removed and euthanized.

        1. And don't forget to confiscate their assets to pay for the roads!

      1. 'The Interstate Highway System was designed to be a reliable system for the economic development and defense of the United States.' (from your link)

        I disagree that the economic development was a primary purpose and isn't supportable under a Federal Responsibility. The Defense Purpose on the other hand is fully authorized under Post Roads.

        Post Roads were, and are, the Lines of Communication the Sovereign needs to project Its Power and mark the limits of its authority.

      2. Our little sea lion is growing up. He now knows how to look for information. If he could get over his fear of primary sources and 30s video clips he may finally become a semi functional adult.

        1. I’m still for euthanizing him along with the rest of the progs.

          1. There will always be a need for a court jester.

    2. Equity?

      1. Perhaps, but Fair Share would diminish the Value of the product.

        For budget items like Defense some citizens may only get the basic Collective Defense benefit and never live near enough a Military Installation to receive its secondary commercial benefits.

        One would never posit seriously that every citizen everywhere should get the benefit and opportunity military pay checks provide the immediate jurisdisction.

        No... if the collective decision is Defense, and Post Roads are the vehicle to achieving that then you've received the promises your tax burden financed even if those Roads never cross your path.

    3. To prepare for AOC's tunnel project.

      1. I think we should go with a bridge. It’ll be the most biggest, the most bestest, bridge evah!

    4. National defense. Oahu has a bunch of US military installations, and compared to the rest of the country, their layout for efficient travel between military bases is actually quite good. Helps that the place is small, I suppose.

      So, it's not actually as ridiculous as the name implies, the name being more a technical specification than an accurate descriptor, at this point. What I mean is, that except under very localized circumstances, Interstate Highways are required to meet certain standards for lane width and lane weight capacity and curve radii in turns and so forth, primarily these days for the purpose of interstate truck shipping traffic, but originally so that the military could more easily deploy a motorized force quickly.

      1. And use as runways to launch/land aircraft.

        1. I've heard that one mile in every five is required to be level(ish) and without curves but I can't prove that it is so.

          1. Not that exact ratio, but some places. Look for no power lines alongside, and miles from bridges, and a big clearing on one side or the other for the temporary hangers and control towers.

      2. Yes, but Pearl and/or Hickham provide the 'Post Road' in themselves and Shafter can project whatever force/mission it needs over that island from where it is. Federal Dollars to build out the Island Traffic was never necessary.

        EBHS said it is equitable Federal Apportionment of tax dollars. It is more that every Representative is given a slice of the pie but according to their political value and not their census proportionality, National Need, or efficacy at alleviating any propounded problem.

        1. I'll fully admit that the last time I was in Hawaii was before I was a driver, so I'm relying on answers I heard to that question then and memory and the map, so I won't be completely shocked to hear I'm wrong.

    5. Up is down. Hot is cold. Freedom is slavery. Federal is omnipresent.

  2. Ornipressin Acetate
    PD98059 is a potent, selective and cell-permeant inhibitor of MAP kinase kinase. It enhances human embryonic stem cell self-renewal.

    1. A Fauci sock?

  3. I suppose we should be grateful that Biden and the Democrats want to spend anything on actual roads for actual cars. Given their urban-public transit biases, most of them probably would prefer to replace roads with bike lanes and heirloom tomato gardens. That would keep truckers out of D.C.

  4. Turning over the roads to corporations is a great way of fucking up our economy and preventing the movement of goods and people.

    1. Now do seaports.

      1. Shipping companies pulled in estimated profits of $150 billion in 2021 — a nine-fold annual jump after a decade of difficulty eking out any gains, Bloomberg reports. Ocean shipping rates are expected to stay elevated well into 2022, setting up another year of booming profits for global cargo carriers — and leaving smaller companies and their customers from Spain to Sri Lanka paying more for just about everything.

        1. Seaports, not shipping companies.

          1. In strudel’s defense, he’s an idiot.

    2. Sullum levels of libertarianism there.

    3. It's a great way to enable corporations to prevent wrongthinkers from driving anywhere. Reason is happy that banks and big tech can refuse service to people with unacceptable ideas because muh private company. I'm sure libertarians would be happy that muh private road company can prevent people who have the wrong ideas from traveling on their muh private property.

    4. If the roads were privatized, the most significant change would be in their management.

      Roads are already financed by private parties--companies and individual taxpayers. They can be and often are built by private contractors. They're often maintained by private contractors and should be. If they were privatized, the main change would be who manages them. Instead of government bureaucrats overseeing the day to day stuff, the management and would be handled by private contractors who charge a management fee for the service.

      Replacing government bureaucrats with competing private contractors is the anarcho-capitalist dream, and it doesn't necessarily mean any government services would disappear. It would just mean those services were administered by entrepreneurs.

      If I had trillions of dollars to spend on myself, I'd build myself thousands of miles of motorcycle roads crisscrossing the Sierras in California. These motorcycle roads would be going from nowhere to nowhere, with almost no traffic, even in the summer, except for other motorcycle enthusiasts like me. That would be ridiculously expensive to build those mountain roads and keep them free of gravel and rocks for thousands of miles.

      I don't need to be a trillionaire to enjoy those roads because California's taxpayers are so stupid, they've spent outrageous sums of money building those roads that hardly anyone but motorcycle enthusiasts use. On some of those roads (which are closed in the winter), I'll ride for two hours at a time and never see anyone else out there but one or two motorcyclists. And CalTrans keeps them free of gravel and rocks--clean as a whistle. A private entity that was managing California's highways and trying to maximize profits wouldn't maintain those roads just for me and a few other people.

      And they shouldn't. Those roads never should have been built in the first place. They shouldn't be maintained to that level. The reason they're built and maintained that way is because CalTrans bureaucrats and their progressive cronies in the legislature are ridiculously unaccountable. If you want to see the administration of such things be accountable, you need to subject their choices to market forces. If private administrators can't make a profit on thousands of miles of perfectly maintained twisty mountain roads--from nowhere to nowhere--then those roads are never built and those roads are not maintained.

      1. The biggest difference if roads were all privatized would be that they were much safer. Private companies could be held liable for poor design resulting in excess accidents, so they could be sued. No one sues the state highway department for creating excessively dangerous conditions.

        1. Actually, roads are already designed by private engineering consultants and built by private contractors, and both get sued for either design errors or construction flaws that result in injury or losses of life or property.

          Hardly any design is done in-house anymore, and the only construction done by government road agencies is maintenance of the most minor nature.

      2. This assumes Strudel wants government actors held accountable for anything.

        1. This assumes shitlord is capable of logical consideration.

    5. Yeah, imagine if we depended on private corporations to provide us with food. The shelves would be empty and the lines would be long, in contrast to when the government delivered everything back in the glory days of the USSR.

      1. Food companies compete with each other. How would that work with roads? It's one thing for railroads that go to the same general location, but roads are much more specific and have only one route.

        Beyond that, why wouldn't a company that owns roads also own other things? What if Walmart owned roads? Why wouldn't they close roads that led to their competitors? Why wouldn't they use the roads to extort more money from suppliers or better deals?

        1. You need to think more creatively. There could be laws to keep them accessible to anyone. You know, like we do today with private toll roads….

        2. Just think of the leverage a corporation would have over a city it it owned all of the power lines in, out, and around.

    6. There already are private roads.

  5. Just think of the leverage a corporation would have over a city if it owned the roads in, out and around.

    1. Is that a feature or a flaw?

    2. But the feds never use the same leverage.
      Pure as the driven snow.

    3. Just think of the leverage a corporation would have over a city it it owned all of the power lines in, out, and around.

  6. OT: Accidentally had the news on this morning, they referred to Biden as a “wartime president “.

    1. Election year.

    2. In my opinion, he's done a really good job with this so far--now that the invasion has started.

      We should expect to see him get a big uptick in the polls. He's looked smart and presidential--and he hasn't put U.S troops on the ground in the Ukraine.

      I have two main criticisms of him at this point.

      1) The invasion of Ukraine probably wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for Biden's disastrous decision to drop his opposition to Nord Stream 2.

      He realized what a mistake that was and revered course--but that was after he'd already emboldened Putin to invade the Ukraine. By the time he'd decided to kill Nord Stream 2, Putin had already showed his hand to the Russian people with the troop build up. Biden realized he'd made a mistake, but it was too late.

      He's like a repentant arsonist. He may deserve some credit for calling the fire department and trying to put out the fire, but he's the idiot that was smoking a cigarette while he was pumping gas.

      2) Biden's next fuck up.

      I don't know what Biden is going to do, and I don't know how he's going to do it, but Biden has fucked up pretty much every major decision he's made since he became president. The most obvious fuck ups would be for Biden to send NATO troops into the Ukraine or promise to let the Ukraine join NATO, but it may be something else. The Biden administration has repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence (and its belief in authoritarian "solutions"), and sooner or later, the urge to fuck up will assert itself again.

      Some people have an irresistible urge to fuck up. Never underestimate the subconscious desire to fuck up.

      1. Good job?

        He reimbursed sanctions he himself removed.

        He leaked material to China who gave it to Russia.

        He then pushed for his administration to use hashing diplomacy.

        Was late to funding Ukraine.

        Refuses to talk to Germany yo get them on board with removing Russia from SWIFT.

        Sanctions don't cover russias primary exports like energy.

        He has not done a good job at all.

          1. He did a good job by not sending American troops into the Ukraine.

            He did a good job in getting Germany to kill Nord Stream 2.

            He has done as good a job as he could to rally the international community against Russia.

            And the fact is that he will probably get an uptick in the polls for this--even if he shouldn't.

            Sometimes, arsonists get credit for fighting the fires they started.

            "Firefighter and arson investigator John Orr of California’s Glendale Fire Department had a way of showing up very quickly at the site of a fire and going right to the point of origin. He was a respected authority and often in the press.

            From the mid-1980s to 1991, a wave of arsons swept through Central and Southern California. They caused tens of millions of dollars in damage, and many of the fires were investigated by Orr. But there was an even greater cost—when flames raced through a Pasadena hardware store in 1984, four people (one shopper, her toddler grandson and two employees) died. Orr ended up being undone by a tell-tale fingerprint left behind at one fire, as well as his unpublished novel, Point of Origin (the fictional arsons were eerily similar to the ones plaguing the state). Orr was sentenced to four consecutive life sentences.

            "My Firefighter Father John Orr Got Sexual Thrills from His Murderous Arson"


            I'm not saying Biden should get an uptick in the polls for this, but I think he probably will.

            1. "He did a good job by not sending American troops into the Ukraine"

              We're 4 days in...

            2. Lol. He didn't rally shit ken. They were already rallied. And Germany only delayed Nordstream 2. Germany is still buying energy from them and is the one blocking action on SWIFT.

              1. Actually, Germany's capitulation on Nord Stream 2 was by no means guaranteed, and pointing out that they were willing to kill Nord Stream 2 is further condemnation of Biden--for letting Nord Stream 2 go ahead in the first place. Your narrative isn't only off. It's giving Biden a free ride.

                Meanwhile, Germany allowing its arms to be exported to a war zone and their bringing their military spending up over 2% of GDP is a feather in Trump's cap. That wouldn't even have been an issue if Trump hadn't raised a big stink about it. That is a major, generational policy shift for Germany, and the credit for belongs to Trump.

                1. I'm the one giving biden the free ride?!? I didn't claim he led the vanguard on condemning Russia.

                  And norstream 2 isn't killed. It will be restarted right after fighting stops even if ukraine gives up territory.

                  Germany meeting international treaties isnt some win. And crediting biden for such is even more laughable.

                  1. "And norstream 2 isn't killed. It will be restarted right after fighting stops even if ukraine gives up territory."

                    I don't know what the future holds, but Germany's breaking long standing practices, 1) willingness to send military hardware to the Ukraine and 2) spending more than 2% of their GDP on their defense both suggest that these measures aren't temporary.

                    No doubt, there's more to do on the energy side, and their internal politics need to change to be less obtuse about nuclear. Same thing can be said about how Joe Biden needs to change his stance on natural gas.

                    Meanwhile, the progressives are making two conflicting assumptions about Biden and Nord Stream 2.

                    1) It wouldn't have made any difference. The Germans would have finished Nord Stream 2 anyway.

                    This is contradicted by the fact that Biden was able to get the Germans to kill Nord Strean 2 for the foreseeable future. By suggesting that Biden couldn't have stopped them from moving forward back in May 0f 2021--when he greenlighted Nord Stream 2--is giving Biden a pass. He could have stopped it then like he did now, but he foolishly chose not to do so.

                    2) Progressives are claiming that Putin would have invaded the Ukraine anyway--despite Nord Stream 2.

                    I guess we'll never know if Putin would have invaded anyway, but we know that Nord Stream 2 emboldened Putin. The best way to help the Ukrainian people was to prevent Putin from invading in the first place. Once Putin showed his cards by stacking troops on the Ukrainian border, he probably felt like he couldn't back down. Biden killing Nord Stream 2 didn't do much after the invasion, but if he'd opposed Nord Stream 2 back in May of 2021, rather than approved it, it wouldn't have emboldened Putin in February of 2022. That much can't be denied.

              1. It's entirely understandable that they're frustrated with our unwillingness to go to war with Russia.

                It remains the case that it is not in the best interests of the United States to go to war with Russia.

                It's entirely understandable that they were frustrated with our reluctance to impose harsh sanctions before they invaded.

                I think there were a lot of people who genuinely didn't believe that Putin would really go through with it--and there were plenty of Ukrainians among them.

                P.S. Why isn't comparing Biden to an arsonist and pointing out his incompetence good enough? When you can be honest about some of the good things he did, it makes your condemnation of his arson and incompetence all the more credible.

                1. There is a far gap between sanctions that are meaningful and war Ken. I expected more from you on this topic.

                2. Yeah, half my coworkers are Ukrainian. The ones that believed got out. A bunch didn't.

        1. We're on the brink of world/nuclear war.
          "Biden's done awesome!"

          1. It’s all our fault because we have a: “psychological issue with being happy.”

          2. All democrats have to removed. Are we willing to be annihilated just to avoid doing something?

          3. "We're on the brink of world/nuclear war."

            Seek professional help.

      2. A cigarette is never hot enough to ignite gasoline fumes. You need several other factors to make that dangerous.
        More like an idiot with a cell phone in his pocket while pumping gas... right?

      3. If Brandon's biggest attaboy is NOT doing something, I think you have set your standards to Democrat.

        EU leader is pushing for Ukraine's admittance, and SWIFT sanctions ignore Russian fuel. This is theater.

    3. This is the democrats last gasp for 22. They hope making biden a strong wartime president he will gain approval.

      1. I don’t think we can survive one more year of this drooling idiot, or his treasonous cabinet, let alone three. Something has to happen soon.

    4. Well, he is fighting a war on inflation, and a war on the insurrectionists trying to upend democracy.

      1. Really? I've got a bridge for sale.

    5. Well, he is the president, and there is a war.
      It's just that (right now) we're not actually IN the war.

      Of course, he has caused the conditions that made it more likely:
      Destroyed American energy independence
      Issued dictatorial edicts to destroy manufacturing, education, hospitals, and distribution; which created -
      rampant inflation
      and supply chain issues
      and unemployment
      and rising interest rates

  7. Zelensky agreed to talks with the Russians.

    “We agreed that the Ukrainian delegation would meet with the Russian delegation without preconditions on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, near the Pripyat River,” Mr. Zelensky announced on his official Telegram channel, describing a phone call Sunday with President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko of Belarus.

    Ukraine’s deputy interior minister said that Russia's agreement to hold talks with “no preconditions” is a sign that Ukraine's resistance is succeeding. The Kremlin had initially signaled that it would not negotiate unless Ukraine stopped fighting. But the official, Anton Heraschenko, told reporters that after several days of hostilities, “the force is now on our side.”

    The Russians might agree to declare victory and withdraw to the two breakaway republics in return for the Ukrainians recognizing the the two breakaway provinces as Russian territory.

    That's about the only way Putin can save face at this point. It will be interesting to see whether Russia's central bank can prop up the ruble, come Monday. If it drops relative to the dollar on Monday, despite whatever the central bank does, . . .

    If I were Zelensky, I wouldn't agree to recognize Putin't annexation of the breakaway provinces unless Putin promised to accept NATO troops in the Ukraine and NATO promised to let the Ukraine enter NATO. And if I were Biden, I wouldn't promise to let the Ukraine enter NATO.

    Meanwhile, time is not on Putin's side. The invasion bogs down the longer it takes to decapitate the leadership; the sanctions will really start biting the longer they go; and Russians are likely to see big price spikes at the grocery store sooner rather than later.

    Putin needs to win soon, and by "soon", I don't mean when Jesus comes back.

    1. It is a terrible move by Ukraine. 3 lost territories in 7 years.

      1. I really don't think Putin will settle for less than Kiev/Kyiv. Along with the Belorusians, Rusyans and Ruthenians (Ukrainians), it's the Russian's urheimat.
        The Rus equivalent of Philadelphia for all the different regions of America.

        1. Either way, Biden has cost the Ukrainians dearly. This is his fault.

          1. Well, the damn fools fired Hunter, so they deserve it.

      2. It beats losing the whole country.

        On the plus side they have shown that the Javelin anti-tank missiles are highly effective, and their air defenses are not to be underestimated.

        1. Yeah, so how would one get ahold of one of those Javelins? Asking for a friend.

          1. Take a suitcase full of money, and a bottle of bourbon, to Ukraine.

            1. I’m guessing blue jeans don’t work anymore?

        2. And there are more of both on the way!

          And those Turkish drones are apparently highly effective. This video claims to show Ukrainian drones taking out some tanks. There are videos being circulated of tanks taken out by Turkish drones in Azerbaijan, back in 2020, but this one here appears to be authentic of the same model drones taking out Russian tanks in the Ukraine.

        3. It keeps getting lost that the border between Russia and Ukraine has been highly 'flexible' for centuries; they may truly be 'breakaway' provinces.

    2. The best and worst part of this whole debacle is that everyone knows Pax Americana is now definitely over.
      This might push other countries to look to their own defense, but it'll also definitely emboldened China and Russia.
      I think nuclear proliferation among smaller states for their own protection is a given. Dozens of other secret programs like Israel's will pop up maybe in the Baltics, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.

      Just spitballing of course. I don't have a crystal ball for this one.

      1. I don't think it's going to embolden China. They are much more dependent on international trade than Russia is, and would suffer far more from sanctions. Imagine if they threatened Taiwan, and we threatened to stop paying interest on US Treasury bonds held in China.

        1. It seems to me that China holds absolute control over its citizens and can weather pretty much anything that the West could hurl at it. But in a way that's irrelevant because, more importantly, it now owns America's ass in a way that Russia never could.

          Look at all the billionaires, the corporations, universities, Hollywood studios, broadcast networks, sports leagues, etc. beholden to it. Look at all the politicians and bureaucrats taking bribes and compromised by it. It's agents and spys sit at every level of government.
          Meanwhile the US military, CIA and NSA fret about pronouns and LGBTQWTFBBQ and political purges, and now view the American people as the real threat.

          And the thing that the Western oligarchy doesn't get, is that China doesn't care about money and materialism as much as it's national pride and regaining what it believes rightfully belongs to it.

          So I think China's already emboldened as fuck, and they know that there's nothing to really stop them besides the Taiwanese people.

          1. No one here will do anything. The democrat party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ChiComs, and they hav slut down payments on many republicans. These people all hav etc be removed, and elections no longer hav such 8ntegrity.

            1. They're really not even pretending anymore, are they.

      2. I'm not sure Pax Americana is necessarily a bad thing. The peace in Europe is mostly attributable to NATO, and that's not just about American troops. If Finland and Sweden join NATO, we imagine that would be about putting American troops in Finland. That isn't what would happen. What would happen would be about Finland putting troops in Lithuania--instead of Americans. Germany has announced that they're both raising their defense spending above the 2% required by NATO, and they're sending weapons system to the Ukraine. If that's what Pax Americana looks like, we need more of it.

        We're so used to thinking in terms of the United States spending money and projecting power for the benefit of our allies, but it wasn't like that in the Cold War and it doesn't need to be like that. The Cold War was about our allies accepting Pershing missiles on their territory (making themselves targets for nuclear weapons) so that the USSR wouldn't have a first strike capability against the United States. Needless to say, it was in our best interests for the Europeans to make themselves targets and make it so that Soviet Union could never launch a missile strike against the United States without our European allies launching a retaliatory strike that would land in the USSR before the Russian's missiles landed in the USA.

        The closer you get to Russia, the less NATO is about the United States defending those countries from Russian aggression, and the more it's about others defending the countries on Russia's borders--so we don't have to defend them. It's about selling hardware to NATO allies on Russia's borders--so we don't have to defend them. If the Ukraine were to join NATO after Putin withdraws, we'd sell the Ukrainians a ton of hardware, but we'd probably send no more than a token force of Americans. The Polish and the Lithuanians and the French, etc. would be in the Ukraine.

        That's the real Pax Americana. Pax Americana shouldn't really be about neocons pushing American values and guaranteeing the security of the world through aggression. It's about other countries banding together to to defend the United States from our enemies. I support capitalist trade with China because it's in the best interests of the United States. I support a constitutionally ratified immigration treaty with Mexico to let Mexicans come here without a visa because it's in the best interests of the United States. And I support NATO because it's in the best interests of the United States. This is all America first stuff to me!

        Germany increasing its defense spending above NATO levels and sending arms to Ukraine is in the best interests of the United States. Isn't that the nuts and bolts of Pax Americana? The U.S. agreement to sell nuclear submarines to Australia to counter China--that's Pax Americana. Japan announced that they're on board with denying payment processing to Russian banks through SWIFT. Japan needs to get past their reluctance to have a military and beef up their navy so they can start countering the Chinese threat--for the benefit of the United States--too. That's why they're weighing in.

        Our allies pitch in because they depend on our alliance for protection against China and Russia, and we can use that to demand that they do more to defend us. Because Trump was right about our NATO allies working against our interests doesn't mean that NATO, done properly, is NOT in our best interests. Because recent presidents have abused our alliance to go on foreign adventures in Iraq and elsewhere and because recent presidents have failed to push our allies to do more to defend us doesn't mean it needs to be that way. We could avoid dragging Poland into Afghanistan for 20 years and we could insist that our allies do more to protect us. In my mind, that's Pax Americana.

    3. Putin could also have Zelensky taken prisoner at the meeting or killed. Remember this is a man who authorized the killing of people who were outside his Country by using Polonium to kill them with radiation. Put nothing past him.

      1. That's why they countered with a meeting in Poland rather than in Belarus the first time. But Zelensky should send a deputy, not go in person.

      2. I doubt Zelensky will go there. I think he'll send a negotiator. Belarus is an almost comically anachronistic Stalinist state. They're like North Korea. Zelensky probably won't put the whole resistance in danger by going to a meeting. The Ukrainians can't elect another leader right now. Zelensky is like Yasser Arafat during the first intifada--he never slept in the same place two nights in a row for fear of assassination by the Israelis. Zelensky may send the former president of Ukraine.

    4. Counter (that will never happen):

      Biden: "How about you join NATO and we leave, and let you Europeans stand on your own for a change? It's your backyard. Defend it yourselves."

    5. Note: it’s not “the Ukraine.” That’s like saying “the France.”

      1. Actually, it's like saying, "The Netherlands", which means the lowlands.

        In English, we add the article "the" to differentiate between any example of something from a particular thing. We aren't just talking about any lowlands. We aren't just talking about a lowlands. We're talking about The Lowlands, hence "The Netherlands".

        "Ukraine" means borderland. If you're not talking about any borderland, or if you're not talking about a borderland, it is perfect appropriate to use "the" as an article in English, as in "The Borderland".

        1. Do you think it’s appropriate to use “the Germany” and “the Iceland?”

          1. Is this the first time you've heard about how articles are used in English?

            The articles in English are the definite article the and the indefinite articles a and an. The definite article is used when the speaker believes that the listener knows the identity of the noun's referent (because it is obvious, because it is common knowledge, or because it was mentioned in the same sentence or an earlier sentence).


            If you don't understand why that applies to "The Borderland" and "The Netherlands" but not the Germany or the Iceland, get off the internet and go read a book.

            1. Also The Dalles in Oregon.

            2. The last bastions of an argument that has been lost: provide something that is true, but irrelevant, then express utter dismay with a point without providing a counterpoint, and then resort to ad hominem. Since you seem to be either devoid of logic or unable to admit when you’re wrong, let me quote your own reasoning, substituting Deutschland for Ukraine: “Deutschland means land of the people. If you’re not talking about any land of the people, or if you’re not talking about a land of the people, it is perfectly appropriate to use ‘the’ as an article in English, as in ‘The Land of the People.’” In other words “The Germany.” Now do Albania (land of eagles), or Costa Rica (rich coast). Why don’t you just admit you made up your reasoning for why The Ukraine is acceptable, rather than continuing down this rabbit hole? BTW, “the” is within the official name of The Netherlands - “The Kingdom of the Netherlands”, meaning the kingdom of the low countries. That’s shortened to The Netherlands. So even you’re made-up explanation for why the article is used there doesn’t hold water.

              1. Pointing out that you don't understand how articles work isn't a personal attack. And you've just demonstrated it again.

                There is generally no reason to differentiate between a Germany and The Germany--although it may be necessary to distinguish between a German chancellor and the German chancellor.

                The point is that these place names evolved the way they did for this reason.

                Do you feel the wrongness? Because this is the way it's supposed to feel when you're wrong. Seriously. Read more books. I'd suggest you study a foreign language to get some perspective on your own, but if you don't understand how articles work, maybe you should just study English.

                1. Pathetic attempt. You’ve ignored all of my points and at the same time moved off your reasoning that I’ve shown makes no sense, to the totally unilluminating alleged statement of fact that there’s no reason to use “the” for Germany, with no explanation. Just like there’s no reason to use it for Ukraine. And this is precious: “The point is these names evolved the way they did for a reason.” And what’s that reason? It must have been dropped along the way. Try taking a debate class.

                  1. The United States.
                    'Nuff said.

  8. Residues and Contaminants Testing
    Residues and Contaminants present in the food chain can stem from a range of sources, including residues of agrochemicals (e.g., residues of pesticides and veterinary drugs),

    1. Good. Tony and Mike and all the super-sensitive types should give up food.

  9. Does anybody remember when Clinton claimed that the US had a budget surplus? Well this is the fallout from his surplus. Clinton took all of the funds from designated accounts and placed them into the General Fund. Boom! Instant surplus. The money from the Highway Fund went into the General Fund. That was the money from the gasoline tax and other sources that was designated to fix the highways. Of course the "surplus" wasn't returned to the taxpayers, the Democrats spent it.

    1. That myth won't die no matter how often you show the idiot left debt by year.

      1. You know that, I know that but, there's a whole bunch who believe it. I am right about the designated accounts. This article has a slant to it, to make it look like "Big Business" isn't paying it's share and that the taxpayers are going to get stuck with the bill. The article is dishonest because money that should have been designated for highway repair was spent on other things. Now the bill's come due.

      2. Clinton-level spending and deficits would be a gigantic improvement over what we've had since.

        1. That decreased rode on the tails of a technological revolution and gave dems the ability to ask for more spending. Are we all forgetting the crash right after he left?

        2. Fuck, Bush level spending and deficits would probably right the ship on course.

    2. "I could give you some of your money back, but you might not spend it right" -- Bill Clinton

    3. That is revisionist wingnut myth. Any view of the US budget shows a surplus for the last two years of the Clinton presidency. It is true that US Treasury debt increased for those years due to a requirement that excess SS funds be used to purchase US Treasuries.

      Let's see what the nonpartisans say about deficits:

      Fact check: Clinton, Obama left federal government with a lower deficit than when they arrived

      It’s true that Clinton and Obama were the only presidents in the last five decades to exit the White House in a year with a lower deficit than the year when they entered. But some other presidents lowered the deficit midway through their terms. Presidents are also not solely responsible for changes in the deficit; for example, Congress plays a role. It’s also worth noting that the deficit is distinct from the federal debt — which increased under both Clinton and Obama. As a result, we rate these posts MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information they could be misleading.

      So, even if you believe wingnut myth about "accounting tricks" Clinton and Obama were the only two presidents to actually lower the deficit over their respective presidencys.

      1. Turn yourself in for your crimes against children.

        1. I would prefer one of his victims, or their families, torture him to death.

      2. "As a result, we rate these posts MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional information they could be misleading."

        "Missing Context" is the most bullshit of all "fact check" prevarications, as it literally means nothing and applies to absolutely everything.

        It is as good as saying "The information isn't wrong but as it contradicts our narrative we're going to try and cast shade on it anyway".

      3. Did the debt decrease in any year Clinton was president?

      4. Hahaha, somebody correctly points out that there was never a surplus and here comes the demhag to defend his boos.

        You’re a fucking Democrat and you need to just own it.

      5. Turn yourself in, child molestor.

      6. So they robbed Peter to pay Paul. Well now Peter wants his money, but, they spent it.

        1. They paid the minimum on the credit card and called it a 'balanced budget'
          And lying piles of lefty shit like turd bought into it.

      7. turd lies.
        turd is a trafficker in kiddie porn, a TDS-addled pile of shit and a pathological liar.
        If turd posts anything which is not a lie, it's purely accidental

    4. Combining “trust accounts” with the general account was the right move. The highway trust fund is an accounting fiction, just like the social security trust fund, and federal trust funds muddy the waters. If in your only year of operation you had $100 of income and $50 of total expenses, you had a surplus of $50. If you then divide your net assets of $50 into $80 of “vacation trust fund” for future vacation spending and -$30 of “general fund,” you haven’t created a deficit.


    Russia has placed their nuclear forces on high alert (special mode of combat duty) due to aggressive statements from NATO countries per TASS. Nuclear forces are expected to conduct real-time alert maneuvers.

    1. Will surgical masks save us from radioactive fallout?

      1. The masks Russians wear protect us from their fallout; the masks we wear protect them from ours.

      2. Damn right!
        Well, they will be as effective against fallout as they are from the Communist Chinese Virus.


    Usually when I’m unsure about what position to hold regarding a subject or debate, I simply look at the most disgusting, corrupt and immoral men and women in our society and see which side they (curiously unanimously) vehemently support.

    Then I choose the other side.

    This tip worked well with Covid and all of its restrictions and I suspect it will work with this Ukraine topic as well.


    Good rule of thumb for interpreting news reporting: if the entire news media seems to be forwarding the same narratives at the same time, you should be extremely suspicious and look closer.
    There is no reason to believe anything they are telling us about the war.
    Entire Western news media unanimously pushes narratives: Saddam had WMDs, Taliban hiding Bin Laden, etc.
    All lies, of course. But the average person, smug as they might be in their superficial recollection, never seems to actually LEARN anything from these experiences.
    Normies will tell you how "Bush" lied about WMDs, but make no connection to the press and their obvious role in making sure the entire world HEARD that lie.
    Between the new phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War and COVID, we are seeing just how short the public memory is.
    So now, with the entire Western press unanimously declaring how evil Russia is, how "we" must stand with the poor Ukrainians, how this is the news of the month that we must all Care About, these same normies who say "Bush lied" uncritically believe it all.
    The power of media.
    And what the press *doesn't* say is often as important as what they *do* say.
    The invasion is presented as "the start" of a new war—how many Americans understand that the Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on since 2014? Probably very few, considering how little coverage it gets
    How many Americans understand the sheer number of threats that have been made between NATO and Russia for decades? And *really* understand in the sense of each party having interests they are trying to protect, rather than a child's "Russia bad" understanding?
    If you trusted the press's presentation of all this, you would have no clue of the Russo-Ukrainian War, and would assume that Putin invaded because he's mean and bad like a Call of Duty villain. You picture him laughing in a dark, smoky room like a cartoon villain.
    If the entire news media is simply repeating what public officials are saying about something, you should be extremely skeptical and demand further inquiry. There is no reason to trust stenography. That's the lesson.
    And nobody ever learns it.
    The other lesson and a great general rule for almost everything in life: always ask "Cui bono?" Who benefits?
    Who benefits from the hysteria surrounding the narrative of the "new" war? NATO and the US, obviously. [Link]
    Depends on what it means to "know" something. In the loosest sense, they "know" that something untoward happened with the GWOT, but it really seems like most don't fully appreciate the implications of just how slimy Western intelligence spooks are.
    Boy, this didn't age well. A month and a half later, entire Amerikan public falling for false dialectic war propaganda en masse. [Link]
    L¡bt*rd position: WE HAVE TO STOP FASHIST PUTIN
    Normiecon position: BIDEN IS MAKING US LOOK WEAK
    Reality: Avoidable situation comes to pass, in part because of US and NATO obstinance
    Normiecon position on Russo-Ukraine is to just continue maintenance of the same policies that helped create this situation in the first place.
    "We have to arm them! Keep giving them weapons!"
    These boomer idiots never learn.
    That position hearkens back to my point about NATO creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where member states have to choose between being weak and ineffectual or starting a World War:
    NATO creates perverse incentive to "get involved," but only through technicalities of "not really being involved"—US is both IN the war + NOT IN the war—our govt helped created situation by couping and arming Ukie puppet govt in 2014—so by definition, we are "involved."
    US deep state and boomer warhawk scum would obviously love to *actually* be involved, but have to cvck themselves and shy away from sabre-rattling too hard, because of NATO.
    They painted themselves into a corner where their options are "look weak" or "start WW3."
    Even when taking the "look weak, don't go to blows" position, any tacit support given in the conflict will only "involve" us diplomatically even more. However weak or ineffective a gesture may be, the gesture is still being made.
    More gestures, more "involvement," more pressure.
    *taps the sign*
    Everything Western media tells you IS A LIE until proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    If you don't deeply internalize this you are ngmi (not going to make it) [link]
    No US official or institution has even the faintest claim to a moral high ground on any of these things.
    Criticism of NATO is not support of Putin. I am not saying Putin is a "good guy."
    Sad that this has to be explained to "dissidents"

    1. Nardz, this is a little off the topic, but it's a question that I've been pondering for some time, and I hope you'll help shed some light on it—

      Most of the Russians of my acquaintance speak and write English extremely well. However, the quality of your writing is—and I'm not sure if this is a compliment to you or not—that of an illiterate American TV-gazer.

      Is this because (uncomplimentary hypothesis) Russian trolleries aren't terribly picky about the English-language skills of their employees; or is it because (complimentary hypothesis) after learning excellent English, you've then carefully studied the American White Trash dialect, to where you can imitate it to perfection, including sprinkling your prose with plenty of spelling errors, unwarranted multiple exclamation points, and lots of use of the caps-lock key?

      1. "YoUr a RuSsIaN tRoLl!"

        Get some new material, dickless little bitch.
        Or come on down to Jacksonville and meet me in person.
        The world is overpopulated with you lemmings.

      2. I disagree with Nardz on some of this stuff, Shrike, but we all know he isn't a Russian agent.

        Rather it would seem brand new names that I've never seen here before, like "Old Smokin' Egg" would be more indicative of a bot.

        Anyway, debate Nardz honestly and quit sockpuppeting, you pathetic fuck.

      3. Aside from the previous pair of verbal ass kickings you're already received, I'd just like to take this moment to comment on the fact that you're bitching about the diction of someone whose entire post body was a paste of someone else's words.

        Yes, do go on about how it says anything at all about Nardz' personal skills with the English language when you're talking about words someone else wrote.

        You feculent maggot infested addle-pated osseocerebrate.

        Have a nice day! 😀

      4. Before trying to look all smarmy and shit, maybe realize that many people post the Twitter link AND the text for people who don’t want to give Twitter any clicks

        Oh, and fuck off, war monger.

      5. Pretty embarrassing self-own. They’re not sending their best, they’re not sending their brightest.

      6. It’s funny to see treasonous democrats attempt to impugn the patriotism of conservatives. When they spent decades betraying our country. First to the Soviets (Ted Kennedy) and later to the ChiComs (Bill Clinton). Since Obama, the democrat party has become a subsidiary of the ChiComs, and are now actively attempting to impose a Leninist system. In fact, we may be no more than a few months away from a Trudeau like Marxist crackdown here if the democrats think they will lose power 8n the mid terms.

        Our greatest enemy isn’t the Chinese, or the Russians, it’s our own Marxist democrats.

    2. Of course news stories should be treated with a healthy level of skepticism. But you shouldn't be doing backflips to excuse Putin's unprovoked attempt to conquer a neighboring country. He's like a relic from the 20th century and should be treated as a war criminal.

      1. Ok.

        Conversely, you should probably question some things if your opinion 100% aligns with the people putting out a mass coordinated message which allows no other perspectives to be heard.

        Especially if those people just spent 2+ years denying your inherent human rights and lying about literally everything.

        1. No, I disagree. Just because the WEF cabal support something doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

          I understand and sympathize with some of Russia's territorial claims, but that still doesn't make this war of aggression right in any way.

          I am worried about what the Davos crowd will try and do with all this, but Putin is definitely in the wrong.

          1. You don't have to agree with Putin to be suspicious and worried about a propaganda effort that's grown even beyond what they did for covid.

            1. Oh I am suspicious. Terribly suspicious.

              I've been saying for months that the Democrats have been practically pleading for a war to save their asses at every opportunity. They've been wagging every dog in sight.

              This also immensely helps Trudeau, Boris, Macron, Jacinda Ardern, Olaf Scholz and Scott Morrison. All of whose own constituents have been regarding them like dogshit and getting ready to pitch them.

              That still doesn't mean Putin isn't an absolute asshole who is fighting a war of aggression. Don't forget that Vladimir and his cabinet have all sorts of WEF ties too.

              This is a situation like WW1, where everyone is a massive cockmuncher exploiting war and death for their own purposes.

              1. Indeed. Putin is a villain, but far less a danger to American citizens than the Biden administration.

              2. "That still doesn't mean Putin isn't an absolute asshole who is fighting a war of aggression."

                This has been largely my view.

                The other day, Boehm ran an article talking about how horribly provocative the US and NATO have been against Russia for the past 30 years.

                His evidence? Well, you see, NATO allowed a bunch of countries to join the defensive alliance. You See? Poland spent decades getting its identity sucked out like blood to Vampire Russia. It's people were ground under the gears of Communism, which was basically a fancy name for Russian-Nuvo Tsardom.

                For some reason it was provocative for Poland to ask its free neighbors to protect it from the fuckers who had raped it for 40 years. For some reason it was provocative for Democracies to agree.

                I get that in the game of Realpolitik, it might be unhelpful to make ratfucking failed states like Russia feel butthurt because nations that they used as bullet-stopping buffers maybe don't want to repeat their recent history. Pragmatically, that very well may be true. But Libertarians generally prize morals over pragmatism.

                If Russia is feeling concerned about its former subjects joining an opposing alliance, that's on Russia, and its half century of terror. If Russia had shown an ounce of contrition for its years of subjugation, these countries might have sung a different tune. Instead they publish papers about how those countries really belong to Russia and then act surprised when they give the side eye.

                I have no desire to fight Russia, largely because I think it is immoral to force Americans to fight (via blood or treasure) on the behalf of people who aren't constituents of our nation. From a pragmatic view, I think the US has done far more to undermine international security by allowing countries like Germany to outsource their security to us while cozying up to the enemy we were supposedly defending them from. But none of that means Russia has some morally legitimate grievance against NATO.

                If NATO is a provocative threat to Russia, it is because Russia has done little to nothing to heal the wounds they created by enslaving half of Europe in their name for the past 40 years. It is because the years long dictator of Russia (Putin) has repeatedly insisted that the Soviet Empire was a decent idea. And it is because they repeatedly invade their neighbors, and then take umbrage when those neighbors seek alliances in the international community.

                There are all sorts of reasons to avoid fighting Russia. But the idea that they have any moral leg to stand on, or that they are in any way a victim acting morally or rationally, is absurd.

                1. Ukraine is a threat because their oligarch class has been sucking up to DC for years.


                  1. I have been arguing that the oligarchs of Ukraine have been a bad influence on the US for 10 years.

                    That doesn't make them morally wrong to seek protection from a country that dominated them for half a century. And that doesn't make it morally wrong to agree to their protection.

      1. I would have posted her tweets but they are now protected.

        1. Deleted, now.

          But, just want to toss this out there to stand in the face of all the rich-hating big-businesss-bashing /*socialist.*/ assholes.

          Because Musk was already developing this system, because he expected it to make him money, it was in place and available such that despite still being in beta-test mode, they could just reconfigure it and with a wave of his hands, effectively, and probably not actually costing him anything either other than whatever bandwidth actually gets used.

          And he could do that because we have a system that still allows people to be in a position to do so. If the Warrens and AOCs of the world get there way and it's all nothing but governments and bureaucrats and carefully evenly curated citizens, nobody's going to step in like that next time.


    It's impossible to overstate how extreme this has been, worsening daily. Largely due to social media, the level of lockstep messaging and reckless affirming of disinformation is worse now than even after 9/11. Zero attempt to identify pleasing assertions as false, by design.
    Almost everything thing that's going viral on Twitter right now is a total lie or completely unverifiable. An absolute breakdown of social media technology on an immense scale."

    It's indifference over false stories spreading as long as they advance the right side: The Noble Lies. That's how a propagandistic government (and neocons) think, not how journalists or citizens should. Even if you're certain of your moral views, nobody should want to be mislead.
    How is it not disturbing that the most influential and beloved-by-media members of the US Congress, almost every day, spread outright hoaxes, which instantly go viral and are left standing with no retraction or note? [Link]

  14. The overlap of covidians and sudden Ukraine zealots is stunning.
    Not very brave.


    A senior fellow at the Brookings Institution is calling for "regime change" against a country with enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on Earth.

      1. Regime change: America would be far better.

        1. Why not both?

    1. The Russian people should be calling for a regime change.

      1. Covid levels of propaganda, all aimed at getting public support for NATO to go to actual war...

  16. Harvard ain't what it used to be. Or was it ever?

    Harvard's David hogg:

    David Hogg
    Imagine if instead of just posting stuff on social media about Ukraine people worked to find Russian soldiers on social media (if they’re on there) and worked encourage defection + surrender + sabotage.

    David Hogg
    Replying to @davidhogg111
    -Match with them on Tinder and other dating apps
    -Find them on Russian social media
    -Post as a “Russian soldier” on Russian social media about how stupid the war is.

    Im just trying to think of things more impactful than just posting hashtags.

    1. But he won’t actually go to the Ukraine and volunteer to fight, will he?

      1. Do you be,I’ve that scrawny little waste of life has ever done anything more than hide behind some woman’s skirt 8n his entire life? He should be dumped off in Ukraine, Somalia, etc.. Best thing for everyone.

    2. I heard Ukraine is giving everybody who wants to come fight a gun. That certainly seems like doing more than just posting hashtags....

      1. David Hogg holding a gun? That’s an image worth savoring!

        1. The little faggot probably thinks he can fix Ukraine by CONFISCATING all the guns from the Ukrainians. I mean, he is pretty stupid.

    3. Just remember that Hogg was a political admission, not an academic one.

      1. He probably scored higher on the "personality" test than a few thousand Asian American students.


    Getting reports a January 6 defendant just committed suicide.

    If confirmed, this defendant committed no violent crime and walked through an open door with Capitol police present.

    Biden's DOJ has tried to destroy so many lives over the past year--they may have another victim.

    1. Now it’s really a “deadly insurrection”.

    2. So, any idea what he had on Hillary?

    1. The number of people basically saying “if the shoe fits”…


    "Listen up you crazy Americans: you need to feel happy. You get it? Feel happy. I'm doing things better for you but your brains aren't right because you don't know what's good for you. Go see a shrink if you're not happy"
    --President Sockpuppet Obiden.

    1. That video is stunning. He thinks people are doing economically great when his own advisors were forced to admit it is driving low wage workers further into dept.

      1. It's telling that the 'leaders' trot out 'alternative facts' to show how well everything is ACTUALLY going. It's like they don't even care about your happiness at all!

  19. The infrastructure package did include a few modest reforms.

    Yeah, like making you pass a breathalyzer test before your car will start.

    1. And you can bet the breathalyzer will be cross linked to Twitter to see if you deserve to have a car in the first place.

      1. Equity!


    For a new administration to make large, drastic changes, it has always been accepted that they need a mandate - to have won their elections by such a wide margin by campaigning on those very changes that it shows the American people are behind them...

    Even if you believe Biden won legitimately (over 50% of America doesn't), he did not win by a wide margin or recieve a mandate...

    The Dems lost more down ballot races than they won. They lost 18 out of 19 bellwether counties and only won by a slim margin in the 6 swing states that shut down in the middle of counting (which they really want to to believe is totes legit & normal)...

    So if Biden has no mandate, did not campaign on the drastic changes he's making and has higher disapproval than approval...why are the people who scream about how much they love democracy silent about these non-democratic acts?

    1. To mis-quote LBJ, "I stole that election fair and square".

      1. I can help but hear that quote in Buck Strickland’s voice in my head when I read it.

  21. You know you're getting the whole story, and are on the right side of history, when you censor opposing perspectives

    JUST IN - EU is banning RT and Sputnik, and their subsidiaries.

  22. Lol

    Imagine how complicated the world would be if Zelensky came out as an anti-vaxxer

    1. I would die laughing. 😀


    Putin says anyone who sends money to Ukraine risks arrest and imprisonment. Sounds familiar, eh, @JustinTrudeau ?

    1. Say what you will about Vladimir Putin, Vladimir Poutine's activities don't go unnoticed.

    2. Everyone should send a dollar.

      1. To both Ukraine and a Canadian Trucker.


    This is clearly the best moment for US militarists, neocons and the intelligence community since 9/11. There has rarely been more of an alignment between the dominant views and interests of that faction and the bulk of the population across the ideological spectrum.

    These two new charts from Gallup show how much US public opinion has shifted in their direction. Russiagate helped a huge amount in convincing Americans to view Russia as a grave threat to the US, but this week's unity has injected militarism with steroids, as you can see here:

  25. Good job, guys

    CNN poll: should NATO go to war for Ukraine? I guess the answer it pretty darn clear.

    1. CNN polls are CNN polls. That's all that needs to be said about them and their methodology.

      1. Sure, but it would've been tough for them to get this result a week ago.
        After 24/7 messaging blitz across all fronts, here we are.
        NATO & the EU are already waging war on Russia (and us, you might remember), what makes you think they'll suddenly restrain their steady escalation?

        1. I doubt they got those results now. I'm totally confident they're manufactured through leading questions and outright fraud.

          Look at all the support Trudeau was supposed to have up here according to the "polls", until a hundred thousand people in the streets of every city (at temps well below freezing) and a catastrophic run on the banks proved them to be a lie.

  26. To those of you who hate social media, you might be tempted to condemn Facebook, Google, and Twitter for tolerating Russia Today pushing Russian propaganda on their platforms--when they won't tolerate the President of the United States or speech that contradicts the CDC. When we do so, however, we should do it in the spirit of insisting that these social media companies start tolerating the speech of our fellow Americans--rather than doing it in a way that calls for them to censor or deplatform Russia Today.

    1. "European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced on Sunday that the EU will ban the Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik accusing them of spreading “harmful disinformation.” She did not specify whether this ban will apply solely to television broadcasts, or whether RT and Sputnik’s websites will be affected."

      ----Russia Today's Facebook page

      Goddamn European elitists have no faith in their people to think for themselves.

      1. Forget it, Ken, it's Europe-town.

      2. The irony of "standing for democracy" by prohibiting and blocking out competing perspectives...

    2. "Putin announces 'special operation' in Donbass | SPECIAL COVERAGE"

      ----Russia Today's YouTube page

    3. "It’s been long proven that sanctions not only fail to solve problems, but create news ones"

      ----Russia Today's Twitter Account

    4. I'd link to Trump's comments on Facebook and Twitter, but Trump is still banned on Facebook and Twitter.

      1. Is Putin banned?

        1. I don't think he has an account.

    5. "Opinions I don't like are propaganda"

    1. Lorne Gunter, wow. There's a guy I haven't read since the days of the Alberta Report. Good to see that he's still writing.

      1. Don't know who Lorne Gunter is, but if he works for the Toronto Sun, how does he not have Vladimir Poutine's cock down his throat?

        1. You're confusing the Toronto Sun with the Toronto Star.
          Comparing Toronto papers to New York ones, the Sun is pretty much the equivalent of the New York Post, the Globe & Mail is like the NYT, the Star is like the NY Daily News.


    We are stepping up our support for Ukraine.

    For the first time, the EU will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and equipment to a country under attack.

    We are also strengthening our sanctions against the Kremlin.


    Everything we are seeing in U.S. media surrounding U.S. interests in Ukraine is a massive propaganda operation with the headquarters in the U.S. State Department and U.S. intelligence community.  The sense of sympathy you are feeling is part of an intentionally manipulative operation from within this DC matrix.

    The images, pictures, videos, speeches, soundbites and the cinematography broadcast by U.S. corporate media are all purposefully intended to create a very specific outlook within the American people toward the issues in Ukraine.  The leftist United Nations, and the leftist U.S State Dept, will work together on this just like they have done in the prior examples (Ukraine 1.0, Libya, Egypt, etc.).

  29. Look at how corporations have handled the internet. If you are in a rural area, you can fuck off. I literally with within 30 minutes of downtown St. Louis and my only internet option is satellite internet.

    Cable? Nope. DSL? Nope. I have to use my phone's hotspot, but can I get an actual cellular internet plan? Nope.

    And this is with government subsidies. Apparently tech companies don't care enough about that in rural areas.

    1. Elon Musk might have just the thing for you.

    2. Both Verizon and T-Mobile have 5G based internet devices with wireless networking built in.

    3. I live within three miles of city center, in a city with almost 250k people and there are no 4g or 5g home internet plans available to me.

      1. Life is just not worth living then.

  30. Something something Robert Poole.

  31. To be fair, it's an insurrection.

    Ukraine attack: Hundreds arrested in anti-war protests in Russia
    Russian police arrest nearly 1,400 protesters at rallies against invasion of Ukraine.

    Police in Russia arrested nearly 1,400 people at anti-war protests staged in cities across the country after President Vladimir Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine, an independent monitor said.

    “More than 1,391 people have already been detained in 51 cities,” said OVD-Info on Thursday, which tracks arrests at opposition rallies.

    1. But I thought that was ok now?

    2. It’s not a real insurrection if nobody was shot in the face.

      1. Do you work for CNN. Spot on.

  32. A UW expert just called the end of the pandemic. Why is nobody celebrating? | Danny Westneat

    Because it's Seattle, dipshit. Was the Women's Temperance league happy about the end of prohibition?

  33. You know who else hogged all the credit for an extensive national highway network and all the jobs its construction created?

    1. The Gromatici?

  34. Just another step towards total Nazism....
    Because that's what Nazi's do....

  35. Every access-controlled highway (i.e., on/off ramps) should be a toll road.

    I drive 2 highways every day. The AC Expressway (toll) and Route 42 (free). The ACX is a smooth ride, and is repaved regularly. Route 42, not so much.

  36. Another example of undertaxed Americans. We are building and maintaining roads on credit. If people actually had to pay for the government services they receive we might be able to actually discuss cutting costs and new ideas. But the costs are hidden, people don't have to pay more, many think they will be dead before the bills come due, and politicians just go along because it is easier than confronting the problem.

    1. Newsflash, we're doing everything on credit.

      1. And raising taxes wouldn’t put a dent in the problem.

        1. Well, we could spend more on The Infrastructure, and cut just a big from social support programs.

    2. The people you mindlessly worship and obey give away most of our money to their contributors and cronies. So we aren’t ‘under taxed’. And to be very clear, this is YOUR fault.

      1. We *are* undertaker for the amount the government spends. But the solution is to cut spending, not raise taxes.

  37. So I'm wondering about something:
    How do we feel about Ukraine's government's mass conscription of all fighting age males, which includes prohibiting them from leaving the country?
    I've been told that Ukraine winning is vital to freedom, which is what they're fighting for.
    So is this a "we have to destroy freedom to save freedom" moment?

    1. Cite?
      Because I read they are lining up to get free Kalashnikovs from the government. On a volunteer basis.

      1. Yes, because males aged 18-60 are now all officially on duty. It is illegal for them to leave.

  38. Personally?

    I think that conscription when your own country is invaded by a hostile foreign neighbor, is radically different from being conscripted to fight a non-threatening country on the other side of the world for ideological reasons.

    1. Fascist!


      I think the elected government of Ukraine is grasping at every straw they can to save themselves from the Ukrainian people being subjected to a vicious tyrant, who will persecute Ukrainians for exercising their rights like the people of Belarus are persecuted.

      There was a Nazi experiment in the camps, where they would put mothers and daughters together in a chamber that was just wide enough for both of them to stand next to each other. They'd fill the chamber with water up to a certain point, and then they'd push the chamber walls together so that one of them would have to climb on top of the other. The one on the bottom would drown. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the mother would lift her daughter up to protect them and sacrifice herself, but there were a few who would climb on top of their daughters to survive.

      Isn't that awful? What kind of mother would climb on top of her daughter and let her drown to survive? Shouldn't we condemn them?

      I don't blame a woman for sacrificing her daughter to survive. Talk about blaming the victim! I blame the Nazis for putting that woman into a situation where she had to decide between killing her daughter and survival. Individual Ukrainians are responsible for their own choices, but I don't know how to blame them in this situation. The person who put Ukraine in this situation deserves the blame. Putin put them in this situation.

      Yeah, I agree. Conscription in the face of survival is different from conscription to fight an elective war--especially when we look at it from the perspective of the drowning Ukrainians. The Ukrainian people can judge themselves for what they had to do to survive. I do, however, reserve the right to judge Putin for what he's done of his own free will.

      1. I think the elected government of Ukraine is grasping at every straw they can to save themselves from the Ukrainian people being subjected to a vicious tyrant,

        Yes, because the current Ukrainian government is all unicorns and puppy dogs! /sarc

        Mind you, I consider Putin's unprovoked invasion to be generally wrong. But let's not kid ourselves: these borders are pretty arbitrary, all the regimes involved have serious issues, and we have no idea what the people in those countries actually want.

        How about we simply stay the f*ck out of these people's business. Let Ukraine and Russia work it out.

        1. What do borders have to do with anything?

          Putin is invading the Ukraine because the Ukrainian people wanted to join the EU. He isn't subjugating them because NATO wanted to expand into the Ukraine. He's subjugating them because the Ukrainian people want to join NATO--and that's a big difference. NATO has been rejecting the Ukraine's efforts to join NATO for a very long time.

          But this isn't about borders.

          The protesters turned out against Putin's crony for rejecting the European Union - Ukraine Association Agreement, and when he fired on them because they wouldn't disperse, the rest of the Ukrainian people turned against Putin's puppet to the point that 500,000 Ukrainian protesters flooded Kyiv until he finally fled the Ukraine for Russia.

          Putin almost immediately annexed the Crimea and fomented rebellion in the two "breakaway" provinces, but this isn't about those borders. It's about the Ukrainian people rejecting the rule of Putin's puppet and rejecting Putin. They want to be part of the EU, and they want to be free of Putin. And Putin can't tolerate that.

          This is one of the great ironies of the whole thing--Putin seems to have believed his own bullshit about how the Ukrainian people would want to be under his boot if only it weren't for the CIA, which is laughably ridiculous considering the way the Ukrainian people are fighting against him right now. The ironic part is what Putin plans to do after he subjugates them. The Ukrainian people mobilized against his puppet before. What's different this time? Why would the Ukrainian people gladly suffer another Putin puppet?

          Anyway, it ain't about borders, and Putin is 100% to blame for this. There were no Ukrainian incursions into Russian territory, but it isn't about the borders.

          1. Seeing Ken turn into a reality denying, neocon propaganda worshipping zealot has sure been something.


          2. But this isn't about borders.

            Well, if it isn't about "borders", then I suppose Russian troops have just been on a stroll across the countryside.

            Putin is invading the Ukraine because the Ukrainian people wanted to join the EU. He isn't subjugating them because NATO wanted to expand into the Ukraine. He's subjugating them because the Ukrainian people want to join NATO--and that's a big difference. NATO has been rejecting the Ukraine's efforts to join NATO for a very long time.

            Gosh, you mean like the US and Europe have been subjugating countries when they threatened to displace the dollar as the reserve currency? When they threatened US or European corporate interests? When the US gangs up with some totalitarian dictatorship to take out some third country? It's what countries do.

            and Putin is 100% to blame for this

            And who the f*ck cares? What business is it of America who is to blame for some war halfway around the world?

            It's also not clear that that is even true. NATO and the EU moving onto Russia's doorstep is an aggressive move by the West.

            This is one of the great ironies of the whole thing--Putin seems to have believed his own bullshit about how the Ukrainian people would want to be under his boot if only it weren't for the CIA,

            Putin believed correctly that the revolution in Ukraine was aided by the West. I think he's smart enough to know that that doesn't imply that they want to be occupied by Russia again.

  39. The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which President Joe Biden signed into law in November, shifts federal highway policy further away from the free market model of "user pays, user benefits" by requiring taxpayers to cough up more money for socialized roads.

    For decades, federal and state governments have siphoned off massive amounts of money from highway and road funds and diverted it to useless public transit and other subsidies.

    The idea that drivers aren't paying their fair share is ludicrous.

    1. This. If I'm not paying my fair share, the fucking bicyclists and the folks on the nearly empty buses running up and down the dedicated lanes certainly aren't either.

    2. Yeah, it's named "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act". Probably before but definitively after "Toll free in '73", it stopped being about the roads.

  40. Roads are an issue Americans need to blabber about instead of build. After the Emergency Broadcast System announces the evacuation is NOT A DRILL, only then can we contemplate the wisdom of letting totalitarian satrapies have long-range nuclear weapons while our government neglects antimissile defences and evac capability. At The Golem Press we used to mail out boxfuls of "Nuclear War Survival Skills" by Cresson Kearney. Now you can download the book.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.