Blame the Feds for Your Canceled Flight This Memorial Day
Staffing shortages and laughably out-of-date technology in the federal government's air traffic control system are leading to a lot more flight delays.

If your Memorial Day weekend travel plans are ruined by flight delays, you might want to consider blaming the federal government.
The Federal Aviation Administration says that it has only about 80 percent of the air traffic controllers it needs nationwide, with some regions of the country falling far short of that. The air traffic control facility covering New York City area airports only has about half the controllers it needs, the agency reported in March.
It predicts that staffing shortfalls and spiking summer travel demand could see delays increase by nearly 50 percent.
The FAA blames the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for its staffing shortages. Air traffic controller trainings were delayed to accommodate social distancing, and subsequent programs to expedite the training of more controllers haven't made up for lost time. Meanwhile, record numbers of people are expected to travel this summer.
These shorter-term stressors are putting a lot of strain on a government-run air traffic control system that's been very slow to adopt new technology.
"These problems have come out of years and years of underinvestment," Geoff Freeman of the U.S. Travel Association told NPR. "If the government doesn't act now, the headaches won't just happen during peak travel season and holidays, it will become our daily reality."
"We're about two decades behind peer countries," said Marc Scribner, a transportation policy analyst at Reason Foundation (which publishes this website), of the U.S.' air traffic control technology back in January. "And the problem is not getting better."
When Scribner said that, it was in the wake of the crash of the Notice to Air Mission System—which provides pilots breaking information about conditions at airports—which temporarily grounded thousands of flights.
Most rich countries have spun off their traffic control operations into government-owned corporations or nonprofit user cooperatives. In the U.S., the FAA manages air traffic control operations directly.
That arrangement has long been criticized for creating a conflict of interest: The FAA is both regulator and operator of air traffic control systems. Having a budget set by Congress and having to abide by government procurement regulations has also slowed the agency's adoption of technology that's standard for less-government-managed systems.
U.S. air traffic controllers still track flights using paper strips, while the rest of the rich world has adopted electronic systems. The paper strips were considered laughably outdated all the way back in 2009 when Reason produced a documentary about them.
The Trump administration last tried to spin off air traffic control operations into a nonprofit entity in 2017, but that reform went nowhere—like many delayed travelers this weekend.
The Biden administration hasn't shown any interest in air traffic control reform either, meaning we can expect problems stemming from our backward system to only get worse.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
My cousin could genuinely get cash in their extra time on their PC. their dearest companion had been doing this 4 somewhere around a year and at this point cleared the obligation. in their smaller than usual house and purchased an extraordinary Vehicle.
That is our specialty HERE====)> http://Www.Pay.hiring9.Com
Britches, you don't have a clue about ATC in the US or anywhere else in the world. I used to get Gell-Mann amnesia over these articles, but I don't any longer. I'm certain your ignorance extends to everything you write.
Google pays $300 on a regular basis. My latest salary check was $8600 for working 10 hours a week on the internet. My younger sibling has been averaging $19k for the last few months, and he constantly works approximately 24 hours. I’m not sure how simple it was once I checked it out. This is my main concern…………. GOOD LUCK.
.
.
BONNE CHANCE…………………………. https://Www.Coins71.Com
Can you please share more about what Britschgi got wrong?
Behold the mighty sealion.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
Or not. It's your prerogative if you want to keep your superior knowledge of the air traffic controller situation in the United States to yourself.
To be fair, the journalism majors are the least educated on any subject whatsoever about anything at all. Second to education majors.
We all know that any delays or cancellations in air traffic will be blamed on
the weatherclimate change.Trump, General; don’t forget Trump.
how many quit instead of taking the useless vax?
I’m sure a billionaire looking for a pilot, would prefer one who isn’t going to stroke out.
Interesting.
Who told you to write this article and take this perspective?
Earlier this week, the CEO of United Airlines was on NBC Today. This was his exact pitch. He was defending the industry (and United) against a push by the Biden administration to require airlines to pay cash to passengers who are delayed in their travel. One of his key talking points was that the real vulnerability of the US air travel system is the air traffic control system that was due to be updated way back before 9/11.
In exchange for this opportunity, he gave a short speech about the Debt Ceiling, stating that any default would cause a deep recession that would be Republicans fault.
It was ham-handed enough to be an obvious propaganda quid pro quo.
And, days later, Reason is on board, talking about the same counter-punch.
Did the memo come from the airline industry? Or did it come from the federal government? Did the FAA send someone around? FBI? DNC?
White House Press Office?
How does that memo arrive? Does an editor take the call? Does it go to Cato and then they call over to let you know the "libertarian" position? Or does one of Koch's staff make the call?
The mechanics of the propaganda machine are much more interesting and relevant than the machinations of regulatory capture battling political pandering and graft.
Don't criticize the fascist, er, private-public partnerships we have for national government-economy-society!
I see the tinfoil hat still fits.
I see your disingenuous arguments are still your primary trait.
People on the left honesty believe libertarians are ultra-conservatives for their support for economic freedom while people on the right honestly believe libertarians are ultra-progressives for their support for personal freedom.
Funny how both sides hate libertarians for supporting freedom.
Funny how you’ve said this dozens of times but will continue to call anyone who disagrees with you a conservative.
And support freedom? You and Jeff support 5 year to 18 year sentences for non violent j6 protestors. Defended Australian covid camps. Denied government censorship on platforms. Etc.
"Denied government censorship on platforms"
And then made excuses for it.
"Defended Australian covid camps."
Those were apparently okay because the government wasn't killing people in them.
But don't forget that Sarcasmic is the one true libertarian here.
Jeff and Mike play the same game. It is insidious. They require to be declared the perfect one true centrist libertarian because they can't actually defend their stances so they declare themselves right and everyone else having other motivations.
Then they make out.
Yeah pretty much.
Begone, tumor
Not one conservative has ever called Ls “ultra progressive”. Why do you persist with this idiotic talking point?
"tinfoil"
So, it s your supposition that Christian just thought up this story independently, the day after NBC had the same story in a different format... At a time when absolutely nobody is talking about air traffic control deficiencies.
You don't need to go through any insane machinations to connect 2 dots that are already in the same spot. You have to do mental gymnastics to pretend there isn't a relationship.
I consider two reasonable possibilities:
1. Christian was instructed by some propaganda master, either at the airline industry, FAA, NBC, Biden White House, to write an article that *reads article* blames the government for airline delays.
2. Christian independently read some news articles on the subject, said to himself "this would make an interesting piece for Reason, after all it's in the news lately" and decided to write this article.
Based on a very simple Occam's Razor analysis, I'm going with Option 2.
But, you do do.
You're forgetting option 3.
Option 3: Charles Koch and KMW told her to write a quick story on the subject favoring whatever investments Charles Koch has at the moment.
Slightly off topic but relevant to Reason's lockstep Koch/MSM reporting.
A Lot Has to Change Quickly for Republicans to Have a Chance in 2024
https://www.realclearwire.com/articles/2023/05/25/a_lot_has_to_change_quickly_for_republicans_to_have_a_chance_in_2024_149271.html
"Consider the following. On the day after news reports of an IRS whistleblower’s allegations of potential wrongdoing concerning the Department of Justice’s handling of the Hunter Biden investigation and the revelation that Secretary of State Antony Blinken allegedly requested a letter from members of the intelligence community to label the younger Biden’s laptop “a Russian Hoax,” the daily White House briefing was devoid of questions on the two issues.
Weeks later, when the House Oversight Committee presented financial records of members of President Biden’s family and their business associates receiving over $10 million from foreign corporations linked to China and Romania using a labyrinth of corporations, a massive tree fell. But virtually no one heard it.
The three “legacy” TV networks did not cover it in their news broadcasts and mostly ignored it on their websites. But taking the old “tree falls” to a new level, The New York Times decided to ignore the tree falling and instead proclaim renewed sturdiness and growth for the tree. Their headline: “House Republican Report Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by President Biden.”
The selective and slanted nature of news now often starts at its initial gathering point and continues in its final presentation to a busy public, most of whom grab their news from social media and news aggregations on their smartphone. Republicans and conservatives have missed the boat in educating voters in a non-controversial and balanced manner, about the true facts and news of the day.
And consider that conservatives are routinely labeled by the mainstream press with the pejorative phrase “far-right wing” while even the most “out there” liberals are labeled the more upbeat moniker of “progressives.” Republicans haven’t even been able to address the simple matter of the lexicon used in political battle."
Reason's news coverage, or lack thereof, of national news mirrors that of NYT, WAPO, MSNBC, CNN et al. Obviously some libertarians have an interest in the well documented corruption of the president but the premier libertarian publication is completely disinterested. It's more than obvious that Reason is not a place where actual investigative journalism is allowed to happen. It is a mouthpiece for the status quo conventional wisdom as dictated by the "new Koch" . Apparently.
Interesting that on a post about a reason writer following the lead of some airline industry lobbying group messaging (yet presenting it as original thought) our resident trolls divert from "you be crazy" to "conservatives think libertarians are ultra-liberal"....
Only one guy even bothered to see that there is indeed someone behind the cortain, operating the puppets from the shadows. And in this case it is the same someone who is pulling the strings for the puppets at NBC.
There is no left, right or center here. There is only the establishment message. And for some reason, nobody at the libertarian magazine is interested enough to look into this, even though we now know that at least one person at reason is on the list of folks to call about pushing the story of the day.
I'm sure the aviation experts sent to Martha's Vinyard can be hired.
Blame the feds? Nuh-uh. Biden told me the most important thing he can do is take care of my trivial travel hassles.
They want you to take the train.
On approved travel days.
Did you see that France banned in-country flights between cities that could be handled via train?
You know who else liked to force people into train cars?
Japanese conductors during rush hour?
Casey Jones?
Will there be showers?
But, but, but; Only Gov-Guns can control air traffic!!! /s
My Gun does that too; It sits in the drawer and controls traffic all day. /s
You mean the made up federal holiday that so many use as an excuse to get shitfaced? The holiday when people feel compelled to load up a ton of unnecessary shit in a trailer and haul it on federal highways to federal lands and cram into crowded and noisy federal campgrounds?
Oh get a grip. All holidays are "made up".
And, as much as I hate to take your side, would it be better if they got shitfaced and camped out any other weekend?
See, that's the thing beyond the argument between 'too much' vs. 'not enough' government, or 'too much' vs. 'not enough' government spending. How about, for the things that the government does do (rightly or wrongly), that they do them smartly and efficiently? It's just frustrating to see persistently crappy service. And yes I know, government by its nature is bureaucratic and bumbling. But other governments around the world don't seem to have nearly the same level of problems that we do with our government. So it is with air travel.
“How about, for the things that the government does…that they do them smartly and efficiently?”
Read Rothbard:
"Economics demonstrates that...a coercive monopolist will tend to perform his service badly and inefficiently. Protected from competition by the use of force, [a coercive monopolist–the state] can afford to provide his service in a costly and inefficient manner, since the consumers are deprived of any possible range of alternative choice.”
“But other governments around the world don’t seem to have nearly the same level of problems that we do with our government.”
They don’t *seem* to have the same problems? You know this how? How many other world governments have you lived under? How many have you studied in detail?
Admittedly I have not done a rigorous and thorough study of every country's government. It is just an impression.
I read articles like this one, discussing the social welfare system in Estonia. There, it is entirely digital.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/08/how-estonia-became-a-digital-society.html
I am not so sure about the Internet voting thing, but think about the taxes and the social services. Why can't that sort of thing happen here?
I also read articles like this, talking about how Germany is dealing with its asylum applications.
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/46094/asylum-applications-in-germany-on-the-rise-in-2022
Back in 2016, at the height of the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe, the German government had to deal with about 700,000 new asylum applications. And according to the article, they are processed within about 7 months. In this country, we have more asylum applications, but WAY LESS than Germany did on a per-capita basis, and it takes our government years and years to process them all. Why can they ramp up their resources to meet the challenge more rapidly than our government can?
Estonia is a fascinating example of using blockchain technology. But they are also a great example of "why not both"?
Estonia not only uses a lot more technology to solve problems, but they also are using that technology to solve a much smaller domain of problems. Social spending in Estonia is among the lowest in Europe. They are regularly criticized for not having universal healthcare, and for their retirement/welfare systems not keeping pace with growing prevailing wages.
This is not to argue that Estonia SHOULD be doing more, but to point out that perhaps Estonia is more successful solving problems BECAUSE it chooses to do less.
It is also noteworthy that Estonia has a gdp about equal to South Dakota. You cannot point to "successful" countries like Estonia (or even Germany) without considering that perhaps the problem is size. Maybe it is just unfeasible to expect to govern 350 Million people across broad distances and cultures in the same manner as a tiny ethnically homogeneous state 300x smaller.
The hilarious part to me of Jeff bringing up Estonia is most mainstream outlets think Estonia is "far right" due to their economic policies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/21/racism-sexism-nazi-economics-estonia-far-right-in-power-ekre
or
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48264637
Krugman has a long history of discounting Estonia because they set policies go not drive up debt and lower the welfare state. While they still have one they tend to focus on policies like payments for having children.
It was in 2012 when Krugman was attacking Estonia and the president responded.
Andrew Heaton did an interesting dig into that subject.
Why America Can’t EuropeWhat’s the optimum size of a country? As countries get bigger, does the nature of governance necessarily change?
In this episode, we explore scaling—how an increasingly large nation-state adapts, or fails, to deliver services competently.
It’s behind the Patreon paywall. He did provide a link to the stats he compiled and used to make his conclusion.
You might find it interesting. There's a metric fuckload of information.
Thanks for posting this. The optimum scale of a state is a topic I’m very interested in.
Why America Can’t EuropeWhat’s the optimum size of a country? As countries get bigger, does the nature of governance necessarily change?
So don't become a massive federal superstate? Interesting.
Here is another data point.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/wb_government_effectiveness/
This is a ranking of a country’s “government effectiveness”. According to the article:
And the US ranks #25. Pretty low among developed nations. Why is that? That is what I ponder.
Because there is an unstated agreement between Democrats and Republicans to let the Federal government be inefficient, that it preserves jobs for Democratic leaning voters while giving the GOP an easy target to mobilise supporters?
I think that gives them too much credit.
The ranking will get worse if you win.
But other governments around the world don’t seem to have nearly the same level of problems that we do with our government. So it is with air travel.
Other governments, in Europe especially, learn from their mistakes. They've scrapped social welfare programs, privatized retirement and health insurance, and otherwise acknowledged that they're not perfect.
Our government on the other hand is full of people drunk on hubris who never admits to mistakes and always try harder while putting the bill on an interest-only credit card.
I agree that other governments, especially in Europe, tend to be more responsive to changing conditions. There also seems to be more accountability for the leaders of those departments. I'm always amused when I read stories like this:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/pressure-builds-uks-johnson-fire-health-secretary-2021-06-26/
So the health minister actually resigned because he kissed his aide which was a violation of the stupid COVID rules. Can you even imagine that sort of thing happening here? Heck, people don't get fired even if they explicitly lie to Congress. It is just frustrating.
I wonder how much of it is due to a two-party winner-takes-all system vs a multi-party parliamentary system. In our system when your team is in power you can literally do whatever you want because nobody will hold you accountable, whereas in a parliamentary system the minority still has a voice.
When was the last time Republicans said to a Republican president "You can't do that" or Democrats said to a Democratic president "You can't do that"?
Well, Britain has a winner-take-all system for their elections as well. So that's not the entire story.
I do think it is a combination of parliamentary-style governance (much less separation of powers) and just a cultural expectation that the government must be more responsive to the demands of the people. That it is just what they are expected to do. In this country, government leaders are much more arrogant and elitist, at least it seems to me.
Well, Britain has a winner-take-all system for their elections as well.
Do they? I thought they had a parliament that had proportional representation.
Each district is winner-take-all.
Is the winner a party or an individual?
Even for the bears in trunks, or, I guess, boots there?
You didn’t even know what a Cuban sandwich was.
"When was the last time Republicans said to a Republican president “You can’t do that” or Democrats said to a Democratic president “You can’t do that”?"
We spent half of 2021 with people complaining that Manchin was thwarting Biden's agenda. And prior to that, Trump's repeal of Obamacare was submarined by McCain. And prior to that, Bush's agenda on Immigration was submarined by his own party. The evidence indicates to me that when one or two party-members disagree, they are able to derail a president's plans.
That said, gerrymandering and reduced representation (the fixed size of congress) does make coalition building easier.
Shit, you weren't supposed to actually have an *answer* to that!
And what happened? McCain was labeled a RINO and Manchin a DINO. You kind of proved my point by showing examples where one party member tells their leader "You can't do that" and get pilloried and excoriated for it.
Ooooh. Labels. How awful.
"McCain was labeled a RINO and Manchin a DINO!!!"
Heavens.
"You kind of proved my point by showing examples where one party member tells their leader “You can’t do that” and get pilloried and excoriated for it."
That's a funny way of saying feted in newspapers and cable news programs across the country as "brave and noble". You're going to need a little more brainpower than you're currently working with if you want to try rewriting history and gaslighting us, sarcasmic.
Also, it doesn't "prove your point", you little retard. It completely disproves it.
Sarc is never wrong even all the times he is, which is virtually all the time.
"You kind of proved my point"
Really? The point I thought you were making was that "when your team is in power you can literally do whatever you want because nobody will hold you accountable".
Well, Bush wanted comprehensive immigration reform. Defectors in his party didn't let him do that. So he didn't get to do whatever he wanted. Same with Trump and repeal of Obamacare. And as recently as this administration, Manchin prevented Biden from doing whatever he wanted.
This evidence seems to falsify the original hypothesis, regardless of whether McCain and Manchin faced consequences. And on that subject, I note that neither seemed to pay a political price for their resistance. McCain was reelected to death, and Manchin is still a sitting senator that is pretty much the final word on whether any legislation will go to the President.
Alright. They can’t do anything they want. But not because their party stops them. Rather because one rogue member goes against everyone else in the party, incurring their wrath and hatred.
Which kind of proves my point that they get the blessing of their party no matter what they do, and anyone who goes against that is considered a traitor.
Your whole thesis is that the two parties leads to parties getting all that they want. But again, we see that isn't what is happening. Democrats wanted the Green Nude Eal. They didn't get it. Bush wanted Social Security and Immigration reform, and his own party bucked him. Another example was the Speaker of the House elections that just occurred- where the GOP didn't just line up and shout "Aye!" but instead had a bitter, protracted fight that required compromise between multiple factions in the party.
And that is why I think the hypothesis is wrong. Factions and coalition building are just as important in the US as they are in Parliamentary systems. Instead of Labour pleasing the green party to keep them in the coalition, the Democrats need to please the AOC wing of communists, and the Blue Dogs like Manchin and Sinema.
As I hint in other parts of this thread, I think that 3 things are unique to the US:
1) Our position as citizens and the country's position as a free, world leader means we see far more scrutiny applied to our government than countries like Estonia. (If you haven't seen it, I recommend the series Clarkson's Farm. Not only is it quite funny, but it is useful to see how dysfunctional things are in the UK.)
2) Our country is the third largest country in the world (by population) and so we have different problems of scale than (say) Germany.
3) Our country does have several unique structural issues:
a) We are not nearly as ethnically homogeneous (there are studies that track the Nordic countries losing their distaste for social programs as their culture became less homogeneous).
b) We also have a uniquely progressive tax system where we are constantly claiming that another person's money will solve our problems (rather than fixing what we have).
c) Our unique position as reserve currency of the world means we can float a lot more debt, a lot more easily to expand our government (rather than fixing what we have).
“Manchin prevented Biden from doing whatever he wanted.”
Nope.
He pretended to for a little while, but the Inflation Reduction Act passed as “the biggest piece of green legislation ever” with his vote.
Edit: in fairness to your point, unlike Manchin and the Ds McCain did kill the repeal of Obamacare and Rs did axe immigration reform.
Manchin caved and gave the administration exactly what it wanted in exchange for *promises*
"How about, for the things that the government does do (rightly or wrongly), that they do them smartly and efficiently?"
Because it concedes the more important argument of whether it is right or wrong for the government to be doing these things.
More to the point, I want to stop worrying about what the government does. The more things that the government takes on, the more of my life has to be spent dealing with them going off the rails.
On board positions at two non-profits, our family has helped pull these organizations out of severe distress. And one of the primary ways to do this is to stop doing stuff that is not core to the organization's mission. Everyone has limited time, and it should not be spent trying to figure out if the janitors are getting the right benefits, or the charitable website is running the latest version of nginx. You outsource that stuff and concentrate on the basics: where is your money coming from, and how much of that can be allocated directly to the charitable mission.
"But other governments around the world don’t seem to have nearly the same level of problems that we do with our government. So it is with air travel."
First, I see no evidence that governments around the world lack "nearly the same level of problems". When I look at the local newspapers in UK, Australia, or Canada I see many of the same controversies about incompetent or uncaring bureaucracy.
But if libertarians must look at how other countries have done it, then look to Canada, which privatized their ATC back in 1996 to much success. There is no need to settle for the lesser weevil.
The Nordic countries tried socialism and abandoned it. Yes they still have robust social programs (public-private partnerships rather than fully public), but their capitalist economies that pay for it all are much more free than ours. That’s all I can think of off the top of my head, but I know there are other examples.
That is something that will never happen in this country. It would require politicians collectively admitting to getting it wrong instead of blaming the other side and demanding more government to fix it.
"Yes they still have robust social programs (public-private partnerships rather than fully public), but their capitalist economies that pay for it all are much more free than ours."
Even moreso, they are grown up about it. In the United States when the government wants to do more, we hear about how it is the responsibility of the rich to pay for the "more". In Nordic countries, the Middle Class pays far higher taxes.
When the government is spending YOUR money, people get much more demanding on how that money will be spent. When they are convinced it is someone else's money, not so much.
Which the article notes Trump tried to do. Presumably that made it a bad thing.
Current score:
permonger 1
strawman 0
So says the king of strawmen.
According to Overt, the only reason I posted the above comment was to provoke you into defending Trump so then I could pile on you and call you an Ultra-Maga Racist Nazi Trump-Humper. Because he is so good reading minds like that. You see, in his mind, I have no interest in having discussions, I only want to pick fights over Trump.
So, what do you think? Do you think it was my TRUE intention with that comment to provoke you into defending Trump?
"According to Overt, the only reason I posted the above comment to herp-derp..."
Overt's right. You're clearly only here to act as an establishment Democrat shill and a troll.
Poor fat jeff.
You and sarc spent all day yesterday claiming not cutting off dicks was proof of being conservative and not being libertarian. Yet here you complain about others pointing out your consistent defense of the left.
Hey look, I tried constructively discussing a point, and Chemjeff decided to make personal attacks again. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is our poor victim.
Suffice it to say, his entire screed is bullshit-emoting, mixed with strawmen- but that's what you get.
Perhaps Chemjeff should take notice that other than Mike and SPB, I tend to match the temperament of my responses to the tenor of the post I am replying to. Chemjeff asked a serious question, and I believe I posted a serious response. Sarc also above posted a serious hypothesis, and despite his attempts to mock me two days ago, I responded directly to that hypothesis.
Chemjeff, when you come into a thread acting snarky, don’t be surprised when I offer some of that same snark right back. If you decide you want to go about mocking me, then don’t be surprised when I mock you back. And when you accuse people of being partisan hypocrites, don’t be surprised when I throw your own partisan hypocrisy right back at you. I admit it is a personal moral failing of mine that I tend to respond in kind, but it is at least predictable.
Hey look, I tried constructively discussing a point, and Chemjeff decided to make personal attacks again. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is our poor victim.
Personal attack? What personal attack? I am reveling in your telepathic abilities to read people's minds and peer into the souls of men to divine their true intentions. It truly is remarkable. I hope you use this ability for purposes of good rather than evil. As they say, with great power comes great responsibility.
And what is this "again" business? When did I launch a personal attack against you before? Oh, do you mean yesterday, after you FALSELY accused me of deliberately trying to bait and entrap Trump supporters by offering an allegedly insincere argument against the power of executive fiat? I mean, EVERYONE KNOWS that you have the ability to read people's minds, but it must have been on the fritz yesterday. Maybe you have a head cold? So when you defame me and lie about me, yes I get angry and defensive. And I can't even say it's a personal moral failing, because I don't think it is.
Chemjeff, when you come into a thread acting snarky, don’t be surprised when I offer some of that same snark right back.
Hmm. So what if I offer a serious argument, and your response is to whip out attempted 'gotcha' quotes from three years ago in an attempt to lie and defame me? How would you characterize that response? A "personal moral failing"?
Chemjeff: What personal attack? [begins personal attack] I don't do personal attacks!
Never change Chemjeff.
Chemjeff: What personal attack? [begins personal attack] I don’t do personal attacks!
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Of course I do personal attacks. I essentially admitted it above, right here, when I wrote:
So when you defame me and lie about me, yes I get angry and defensive. And I can’t even say it’s a personal moral failing, because I don’t think it is.
I don't claim that "I don't do personal attacks", not above anyway. (Maaaybe in the far distant past before I realized what a Thunderdome this place is, but not now.) But you would rather lie about me and claim that I don't, in order to level a charge of hypocrisy against me.
“So what if I offer a serious argument, and your response is to whip out attempted ‘gotcha’ quotes from three years ago in an attempt to lie and defame me?”
This is not about defamation (though I think it is interesting that you think quoting your statements is defamation). It is about disproving an argument you were making. I was going to let this go, but we have been centering on your poor logic quite a bit this week. So maybe this will be instructive. This was the argument you provided:
“this is an opportunity for Libertarians to be the adults and state unequivocally that we are categorically opposed to unilateral executive authority to declare bullshit emergencies…We won’t be the tribal morons who argue “it’s ok when WE do it but when THEY do it, it’s a threat to the Republic”.”
https://reason.com/2023/05/26/north-carolina-governor-declares-state-of-emergency-over-education-debate/?comments=true#comment-10080906
You are [1] Demanding that people prove they are “Libertarian” by unequivocally stating that they are categorically opposed to something. You further assert [2] that you are one of these principled Libertarians (“we”). And you are [3] implying that someone is a “tribal moron” if they disagree, backing it up with a caricatured quote that you made up. ([3.5] is that if you aren’t a libertarian, you aren’t “an adult”).
First I think we can all agree that implying people are “tribal morons” is not “serious”. Nevertheless, your argument becomes “If you unequivocally, categorically oppose examples of government force [1], you’ll be a libertarian like Chemjeff [2]. Otherwise, you just might be a “tribal moron” [3].
But a few posts later, you state that [1] distinguishes Libertarians from others- no one else does [1]. Therefore, using “distinguish” inverts the premise. You have now said “If you do [1], you are a libertarian.” and “If you DON’T do [1], you are NOT a libertarian, and you might be a tribal moron.” Chemjeff, your entire argument was to say “I’m a good libertarian and other people could be tribal morons.” I think this unserious, but even if we take it seriously, my response was specifically attacking YOUR premises.
For your argument to be accurate, both [1] and [2] need to be true. If Chemjeff does not unequivocally and categorically oppose government force, then either it is wrong to say [1] Libertarians unequivocally, categorically oppose or it is wrong to say [2] Chemjeff is a libertarian.
Again, you created this test, I did not. It is completely valid for me to show examples of you NOT opposing [1], because it is completely germane as to whether or not your argument is accurate. (And of course, if your argument really was serious, then it means proving you are NOT libertarian, means you are not “an adult” and that you may be a “tribal moron.” But that is just a bonus of your construction.)
So we have shown relevance. That is, your past behavior is relevant to the actual argument at hand. Our question is now whether or not my interpretation of your past behavior is correct. This hinges completely on whether “not support” is the same as “unequivocally, categorically oppose”. I think it is patently obvious that they are two different things- just as “not helping” is different form “working against".
So let’s tie this all up, shall we? YOU decided to bring me up, with a false statement of my beliefs, in a totally unrelated argument. I, on the other hand, brought up your past behavior DURING AN ARGUMENT YOU CREATED, where your behavior as a libertarian was relevant to that argument.
Do you see the difference?
Why? Seriously, why? What's the point of slap-fighting with a shit gargling nematode? "Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get muddy, but only the pig enjoys it."
There are people here -- people with whom I have serious disagreements -- who I haven't muted because even if I vastly disagree with their premises, they at least argue honestly for. Chemleft isn't one of them. When he starts losing, he just makes shit up.
Mute the useless cunt already, and drag this board back towards worthwhile conversation. Chemleft will never be a part of that.
And, one more thing. Perhaps as a test to see if your telepathic abilities are working again, why don't you peer into my soul and tell me what my real purpose was in posting that comment above, from 6 hours ago. Was it an honest, sincere argument? Or was it an insincere trolling attempt to entrap people? Which was it?
You have a track record.
Just own it and hear after argue your actual opinions.
I have never said you are incapable or unwilling to have a constructive argument. Sometimes you do.
Other times you let your partisan blinders get the better of you, and you hold people to a far far different standard than you hold yourself (or others in your tribe). For example right now you are so offended that I seem to be imputing your motivations and thoughts, when I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve read a Chemjeff, “This is what conservatives ACTUALLY think!” screed. And of course yesterday, you came in trying to shame people into categorically oppose something, when you couldn’t do the same thing.
I think the argument above was fine, though the conclusions incorrect, which is why I responded to it in good faith. You began hurling insults.
For example right now you are so offended that I seem to be imputing your motivations and thoughts, when I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve read a Chemjeff, “This is what conservatives ACTUALLY think!” screed.
Go ahead, pull out your dossier and show us all where I have supposedly said "THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY THINK". Because I try to be very careful in the language I use. In case my nick doesn't give it away, I'm a scientist. So I do strive to use the language of science and instead of declaring emphatically "this is the way things are" (because I don't actually *know* how things are), I will say, in tentative language, "this is what *I believe* is the case", or "my *hypothesis* of what is happening is thus". Unlike you, I don't claim to be a mind-reader. I don't actually know what is going on in your head or in the head of any other conservative. But I can make an educated guess based on observation and logical deduction. I will listen to conservatives' stated rationales, and then I will compare it to the evidence, and then I will form my conclusion. Same with liberals, or with anyone else.
And of course yesterday, you came in trying to shame people into categorically oppose something, when you couldn’t do the same thing.
This is a lie. You know it is a lie but you continue to perpetuate it. Why?
I think the argument above was fine, though the conclusions incorrect, which is why I responded to it in good faith. You began hurling insults.
Oh. Thanks. Thank you for validating the feelings inside my soul. I now feel complete.
"Go ahead, pull out your dossier and show us all where I have supposedly said “THIS IS WHAT CONSERVATIVES ACTUALLY THINK”."
I don't need to go back long. Just two days ago, this is what you said:
"No you’re right, she doesn’t say “against your wishes”. She also doesn’t say “while coordinating diplomatically with the Mexican Government”...Why should I give them the benefit of the doubt that they meant to say something responsible and reasonable, instead of something irresponsible and unreasonable?
...I’m a better judge of what Team Red *actually* is"
https://reason.com/2023/05/24/the-republican-primary-consensus-for-sending-the-military-into-mexico/?comments=true#comment-10080161
Your entire construction is that you KNOW these Republicans intend to invade Mexico despite them NOT SAYING IT. They *could* actually harbor a desire to invade another country. They could also intend to coordinate with the provisional governments. If there is ANY evidence either way, it is that the examples they used (Osama bin Laden, ISIS) were examples of US using military with the permission of the local governments.
You have no evidence that they intend to invade, just your mind reading.
"Unlike you, I don’t claim to be a mind-reader."
Well, if we are going to be technical, please pull a quote where I assert I can read minds. But beyond that, just look at the argument above. I assert we CANNOT KNOW what these people intend to do, because they have not said. I also assert that what they HAVE told us is examples of military action where the local government was involved. You, on the other hand, insisted YOU DO KNOW what is in their minds. Your only evidence is that you are a "better judge" of Team Red.
"Oh. Thanks. Thank you for validating the feelings inside my soul. I now feel complete."
Let's add "being a passive aggressive prick" to "hurling insults". You asked what I thought about your argument. I answered you. This is just as passive aggressive as when you demand I provide cites of your statements while also complaining that I keep cites of your statements. "You are a liar if you can't cite me, and creepy if you do!"
Your entire construction is that you KNOW these Republicans intend to invade Mexico despite them NOT SAYING IT. They *could* actually harbor a desire to invade another country. They could also intend to coordinate with the provisional governments. If there is ANY evidence either way, it is that the examples they used (Osama bin Laden, ISIS) were examples of US using military with the permission of the local governments.
You are being disingenuous. When you correctly stated that they did not explicitly say "invade Mexico", then I corrected myself. Did I not? Just admit it. And your entire complaint here is that I did not give them the GENEROUS interpretation that you think they demanded. Instead I took them strictly at their word. That was what made you upset.
YOU are the one who was mind-reading there by claiming that the most generous interpretation was in fact the CORRECT interpretation.
This is more of your White Knight behavior. Always looking to see Team Red in the most positive light. Hmm I wonder why.
I assert we CANNOT KNOW what these people intend to do, because they have not said.
Bullshit. This is what you ACTUALLY said:
None of them said that they were going to work with the Mexican government. None of them. And when I point that out, you say "it is an insane leap". Why is it insane? Because I should just assume that "they mean well" and "should be given the benefit of the doubt"? Because you have read their minds and peered into their souls to determine what their true thoughts are?
You lie about your own arguments.
This is just as passive aggressive as when you demand I provide cites of your statements while also complaining that I keep cites of your statements.
Oh, let's just be real clear about what happened here. You pulled a three-year-old quotation unsolicited with the sole intent to try to nail me in some gotcha moment when the entire attempt was a complete slander. Yes it is creepy that you pull these kinds of tactics.
> I have never said you are incapable or unwilling to have a constructive argument.
I'll say that. At least, he's sufficiently frequently disingenuous and mendacious enough to just give the grey bar middle finger to. A 1:10 signal to noise ratio isn't worth trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. Don't respond. Just let them starve to death in the dark like they want.
Normally, I don't have the time to spend. But this is a long weekend and a campout was canceled, so I actually have some free time.
Also, I have noticed a switch in team Blue's behavior the last few days. Normally, they are content to snipe back and forth with Team Red. However, after I debated specific points with Chemjeff on two occasions, he has come the next day trying to lash out at me and engage in personal attacks.
On the 24th, I disagreed with his carictorization of GOP policies vis a vis Mexico. The next day he (unsolicited) accused me of being a "White Knight" for team Red, with a chip on my shoulder. On Friday, I disagreed with his argument that he is an "adult" libertarian who opposes government force, and the next day he was (again, unsolicited) telling everyone I am a self-declared "mind reader".
Given that he is the best I am going to get for Team Blue debate around here, I do see some value in pointing out the behavior in the hopes that he knocks it off. I understand when people get over-zealous in a conversation. I have done so. But I am not interested in shouldering the baggage that Chemjeff wants to carry about me from day to day.
> Given that he is the best I am going to get for Team Blue debate around here, I do see some value in pointing out the behavior in the hopes that he knocks it off.
I disagree. I have agreed with JFree like, on 1% of things he's said in the last five years, but I still haven't muted him because he seems to be at least attempting to have a real godsdamned conversation about shit. Jeff and Sarc and Mike and Pluggo are just throwing shit at the wall to see if anything anywhere will stick. And I've been here long enough that the first two of those at least used to make an effort to be slightly sane. But they just aren't any more.
It sucks. I don't like watching people turn into NPCs. But i happens sometimes, nonetheless.
On Friday, I disagreed with his argument that he is an “adult” libertarian who opposes government force,
Oh no no no. Let's clarify the record here.
You completely lied and slandered me by inventing an argument that I did not make because you think you can read my mind. And the argument that you thought I was making was vile and disgusting. And, I believe, it is because you have a chip on your shoulder for the 'downtrodden victimized deplorables' that you feel like you have to constantly defend, and so you are hyper-vigilant in trying to find ways to protect them from my "obvious entrapment schemes" (which it wasn't).
You're a pompous ass, a deceitful liar, and about 1 step away from being muted yourself if you don't start owning up to the things that you have done.
Given that he is the best I am going to get for Team Blue debate around here
Oh fuck you. I'm not on Team Blue.
It sucks. I don’t like watching people turn into NPCs. But i happens sometimes, nonetheless.
LOL the only NPCs around here are the ones who listen only to partisan media and repeat their narratives uncritically, as well as those who accept those narratives uncritically. This applies probably to about 1/3 of the board here now. And I'm not in that 1/3.
This memorial day remember Obama turned the military political, and Biden continued the purgers. Not a single thing left in the military deserves respect
Yes, because the military was never political before, and things like "Don't ask don't tell" didn't exist.
Don't ask don't tell is explicitly keep your personnel business to yourself
It's a GOVERNMENT decree that controls speech and expression in the military. Therefore, it is political. All the people who say things like "This never happened before X" are ignorant of history.
The DHS is literally giving money to antifa members to help oust conservatives. Spoiler alert anyone not to the left of Mao is "conservative"
Are you mentally deficient or intentionally posting nonsequitir replies? Either way, frag off.
That depends, how much are you charging for the rental space in your head?
Don't ask don't tell replaced the pervious policy of expulsion upon discovery of homosexuality.
Haha. Perv-ious. Nice.
It’s the democrats who need purging.
Since most white Democrats no longer have kids, that wing would take care of itself. Thus their dedication to propaganda and recruiting in K-12 and higher ed.
"Notice to Air Mission"
It's notice to airmen. Don't play the evil word games the gov plays.
Democrats may refuse to pass the debt ceiling changes because it includes work requirements for welfare programs, many the same that was done successfully under Clinton and showed to decrease welfare use for able bodied workers. The GOP is holding firm so far on the requirements.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/republicans-firms-keeping-work-requirements-debt-deal-negotiator-says
It seems democrats want to keep the narrative of "not enough american workers" to continue pushing for illegal immigration.
They also can't overcome the feeling that any requirement of work for pay is oppressive.
https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1662626138378625026?t=Iif9h9QH-nlOGcdcrCKkHA&s=19
The cut spending about $50 billion.
In exchange they are raising the debt ceiling about $4 trillion to get them thru 2 years.
This is pathetic. We are so ph*cked.
They didn’t even really cut spending. They are slowing the rate of growth. Many programs were off limits with no cuts.
Defense, Social Security, Medicare, etc. they could easily have cut Defense spending 10% there is so much waste in there.
[Link]
What a crock. I wasn't going to work on the first if they didn't figure out the budget shit, and I'd still rather they held out for a better deal that that. Because I want the money I earn after they hammer out a deal to actually be worth something.
Impeach the perjurious criminal "Doctor" Anthony Fauci.
Impeach Garland
Impeach Mayorkas.
And last but certainly not least, impeach Sleepy Joe Biden.
Yep, I said it again. Happy Memorial Day weekend everyone!
Posted this yesterday, but I don't think many saw it and it's kind of a big deal.
DHS funds program that classifies Republican Party as “far right extremist” organization with links to Nazis
This stuff is deliberately being floated to justify further repression when the time is deemed right.
Don't tell yes way Ted, he thinks this is standard
You are brain damaged. Fuck off retard.
1. You’re absolutely right that it’s a disgrace and the funding should cease immediately – indeed, funds should be returned, if possible.
2. It’s counter-productive at the very least. When someone makes such obviously false claims and linkages, it later discredits activities against genuinely threatening extremist groups. (By analogy, note how Sen. McCarthy’s bullshit claims caused people to miss or overlook genuine Soviet infiltration of US institutions.)
3 It is not, however, a setting-up for repression or to be linked to the execution of a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, except in right-wing febrile imaginings.
“All bets are off when trump is involved.”
"3 It is not, however, a setting-up for repression or to be linked to the execution of a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, except in right-wing febrile imaginings."
Why?
With what we now know that the FBI and DHS have been doing for the last six years, it's incredibly likely.
You should listen to yesterday's Reason podcast.
https://reason.com/podcast/2023/05/26/eli-lake-trump-russiagate-and-the-end-of-fbi-credibility/
There's a huge jump from that to widespread repression. You seem to regard Trump as a standout case of a much broader strategy, whereas from an intelligence perspective there was every reason to distrust Trump specifically from the very beginning of his campaign - if not earlier. It is not as though the FBI started out saying, let's go after Trump. Instead, they behaved according to a confirmation bias. This is not a defence, nor even a mitigation, but is an explanation that fits the facts and doesn't rely on conspiracy thinking.
And as far as far-right groups are concerned, your perception is coloured by your basic sympathies for them - not that you necessarily agree with their tactics, but you evidently regard them as our boys who've gone wrong and made a mistake or two, but not enemies (just as Solzhenitsyn noted explaining the difference in treatment between murderers and violent criminals on the one hand, and dissidents on the other, in the Gulag). Hence investigations of them look like an attack on your side overall.
Keep up the hope trump is still guilty of Russian collusion shrike. Just ignore all the evidence of IC and FBI corruption.
They behaved differently for 4 Hillary investigations that had actual evidence. They had no evidence on trump and admitted they couldn't corroborate anything. British intelligence even told them it was false information.
This is corruption. Not simple confirmation bias. But keep up hope.
. It is not as though the FBI started out saying, let’s go after Trump.
LOL! That' exactly what the FBI started out with, prior to his election during the campaign. Are you ignoring what McCabe, Page and Strzok were up to?
"And as far as far-right groups are concerned, your perception is coloured by your basic sympathies for them"
Stop right there for a second because this is exactly what makes establishment left rhetoric so cheap. "Far-right" is becoming as buzzy and amorphous as calling someone "racist" or "fascist".
Before we go any further, I want you to be sure that you're going to debate this in good faith.
So I want you to tell me exactly who these "far-right groups" you're referring to are (Name names), and what beliefs and practices that they hold that make them far-right.
I'm not asking for an essay or citations, just short one-sentence examples of who you are referring to as far-right groups and why.
"It is not as though the FBI started out saying, let’s go after Trump."
That's exactly what happened.
Carter Page wrote to Peter Strzok in 2016 that "(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?".
The two then proceeded to involve McCabe and Comey and contact the Hillary campaign, and the whole thing was ginned up right then and there.
Dammit, not Carter Page, Lisa Page. This is what happens when I’m answering multiple things at once.
And I forgot to add that Strzok replied “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,”
O/T: This seems like a straight-up First Amendment violation. Don't think this one was decided correctly.
https://apnews.com/article/first-amendment-student-mexican-flag-sash-graduation-colorado-0920df2dd331aed5792b9e0acf6dca5d
Government Twitter censorship didn't bother Jeff in the slightest, but not getting to wear a Mexican flag sash is a 1A violation he's willing to fight for.
Stop expecting Jeff to be honest.
How about gang colors? Is that cool too?
What do you think?
Jeff: “Are the gang colors red or blue?”
Shocking for one who has never graduated high school maybe.
The rest of us wore standardized caps and gowns with a dress code not allowing anything else.
Daniel Penny is a scapegoat for a failed system: he violated the code that normal workers and taxpayers are an afterthought in public policy:
https://thespectator.com/topic/daniel-penny-scapegoat-homelessness-system-neely/
This is a really outstanding piece that does a great job of outlining the history and reasons underpinning the absolute disaster of deinstitutionalization and the elevation and prioritization of the abnormal and insane over the normal and sane.
This Daniel Penny case is going to be George Zimmerman, the sequel. And of course the leftie scumbags on Reason staff will be rooting for a conviction again, just like were last time around.
The desired, intended policy outcome is that if you're white and normal, you won't be allowed to defend yourself or others around you from a mentally deranged black criminal under any circumstances.
Complete with false testimony and made up witnesses
I hope we get another witness who can't read the note "she" wrote because it's in cursive.
At this point, cities in Democrat controlled states are a lost cause, essentially enemy territory. Any normal person who does not wish to become a sacrifice to the progressive social justice warrior project–up to and including having one’s life or the lives of one’s family taken in an act of “reparation"--should leave now.
This will not end well.
And Heather McDonald’s article is right on point, as usual.
Except Zimmerman was acquitted.
NY jury is going to convict Penny, just as an Austin jury convicted Perry.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1662631123782979587?t=5-238QUYjQ98dwouPUyesQ&s=19
A black New York woman was fired from the high-end luxury gym Equinox after being late to work 47 times within 10 months. She then sued, alleging she was fired for being black. A Manhattan jury awarded her $11.25m in damages last week.
[Link]
I mean, not to try and contradict the claim that New Yawkers are retardedly lefty, just, I can't imagine there won't be *one* person on that jury that has, like, ridden a subway car recently enough to think Penny did a good deed and will hang the jury. Still, I don't think I'd wager a *lot* of money against the proposition that he'll be found guilty, yeah.
Fuck, I hate that my society has turned into absolute trash.
Does anyone else remember CPT? Colored people time
That is a thought-provoking article, thanks for recommending it.
Here is the version that does not require registration:
https://archive.is/ZJqBK
But here is where I think she goes off the rails, at least from a libertarian perspective:
Well, I hate to break it to her, but "vagrants, the mentally ill, criminals, illegal immigrants" all *do* have rights, *along with* everyone else. And it is the proper role of government to secure those rights. And it costs money to fund that government, and yes that money is going to come from taxpayers, who in general are people who have jobs and pay taxes. If a taxpayer resents paying taxes to protect the rights of vagrants or illegal immigrants, then it's the taxpayer who doesn't understand the whole purpose of government in the first place IMO. Furthermore, taxpayers don't get "extra special" rights just for being taxpayers. That being said, protecting rights of vagrants, or anyone, does not mean limitless social welfare.
Nobody has a right to attack or threaten to attack people on the subway, mentally ill or not.
You're right.
So why the screed about protecting rights ?
Starting in the 1960s, government’s focus shifted from serving the law-abiding to vindicating the newly conceived rights of the dysfunctional and the anti-social.
The author writes this as if this was some zero-sum game where the "dysfunctional" are taking something away from the "law-abiding". Instead I would argue that it was a good thing that the government started paying attention to the rights of both the law-abiding and the "dysfunctional".
the “dysfunctional” are taking something away from the “law-abiding”.
They are.
Do you think that the mentally ill are voluntarily mentally ill?
Does that fact supplant the rights of others? When a mentally ill person pushes someone in front of a train are they to be excused?
What are they taking away?
How about the simple expectations of riding on a subway without getting attacked by a wild animal. (Like a bear for example).
But no one has the right to assault anyone regardless of their social status. So again what are you advocating for. That the "dysfunctional" should be forcibly locked up because otherwise they might assault someone on the subway?
If no one has the right to assault anyone, then anyone has the right to self defense. Getting your ass handed to you for attacking someone isn’t a rights violation, it’s just what happens.
(Like a bear for example.)
It is my understanding that the preferred method of motor travel for bears is above ground.
If no one has the right to assault anyone, then anyone has the right to self defense. Getting your ass handed to you for attacking someone isn’t a rights violation, it’s just what happens.
So we agree then. So what is the issue?
The issue is you are an ass.
Subway cars do not have trunks.
As outlaw status is prohibited* under any normal reading of the Constitution, that someone has infringed on your rights does not mean that they thereby lose all their rights.
* Excluding hostis humani generis
I will, honestly, never understand why rich progressives in expensive cities are so willing to tolerate the abysmal services their exorbitant taxes provide.
Have you tried asking them?
Well probably because they're rich and they can afford it. Cities don't actually provide "services" to anyone above the welfare class anyway. Those that notice just move to Florida.
Social acceptability and the numerous kickbacks their charities and political groups.
The FBI Knows What Car Was Used In J6 DNC Pipe Bomb, But Refuses To Identify Prime Suspect
Watergate-sized scandals are exposed every single day now, and I'm tempted to just shrug. It's become overwhelming.
And this, combined with the fact that we know that the Secret Service had 200-300 undercover agents on the Hill that day, and the FBI had possibly even more, tells us that the Feds were definitely up to something January 6.
Much greater scandals than Watergate.
Trump is the new Satan.
Radical left threatens civilisation in France, says Macron.
"Macron is said to believe the process has gone into reverse in what one adviser called a “Trumpisation of minds and a denial of reality”.
Trump gets blame for what the left is doing... in France.
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Trumpisation = Manufactured grievance based on Alternate Reality.
Yes, the Left can indulge in "Trumpisation". No question.
"MAGA Communism", right?
Buttplugisation = Manufactured examples based on Alternate Reality.
Another Minitrue proposal.
Democratic senators introduce a bill to create new federal agency that would regulate speech and behavior online
“What could possibly go wrong?” – George Orwell
So much for PrIvAtE cOmPaNiEs
IRS whistleblower had provided documents showing the DoJ delaying and denying normal investigative actions to benefit Hunter Biden.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/sat-irs-whistleblower-provides-congress-origins-biden-probe
And then nothing happened.
This is far worse than other presidential scandals like Teapot Dome or Watergate because rather than being engineered by a handful of corrupt bureaucrats or politicians, whole federal agencies are conspiring. It's insane.
And the major media outlets have virtually no interest.
Because Hunter Biden not paying his taxes is a fairly banal crime.
He isn't even elected FFS.
“Because Hunter Biden not paying his taxes is a fairly banal crime.”
Are you actually going to try and pretend that’s what we were talking about, and not the contrivance by federal agencies to cover it up?
You always try and pull shit a toddler would see through, but you think you’re being so tricky.
Nor the purchase if a sitting VP. I mean sqrsly and others cheered on FARA violations against members of Trumps team.
Then again sqrsly seems to enjoy and applaud political persecutions.
Just mute the thing.
Anyone who subjects themselves to the No Constitution/Fascist Dysfunction Zone otherwise known as modern air travel should expect to be treated like garbage.
Personally, I’ll pass.
Well, it's not just US airports which are struggling.
Anger over airports' passport e-gates not working
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65731795
Air traffic control problems = passport problems
/Jeff
Well, it’s not just US airports which are struggling.
You really don't know how ATC is different than a passport line?
Sad day for Hong Kong.
Civic Party: Key Hong Kong pro-democracy group votes to disband
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-65732862
PrIvAtE cOmPaNy
Well, this seems bad.
Report: 20 of the world's richest economies, including the U.S., fuel forced labor
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/26/1178331229/world-modern-slavery-report
“Buy American to stop slavery”
/jeff
Isnt this where you scream free markets and not mention these abuses? Because that is what you do in every thread regarding tariffs.
Slavery is good as long as you get goods for a few dollars cheaper according to you and sarc. US is not allowed to do anything about other countries market abuses right?
Meanwhile, Europe has already slashed both wrists but the bleeding has just started.
Germans Are Outraged About The Country's Oil And Gas Boiler Ban
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Germans-Are-Outraged-About-The-Countrys-Oil-And-Gas-Boiler-Ban.html
"Germany wants to become net-zero by 2045. To this end, the government recently announced it would ban boilers working with fossil fuels, effectively forcing people to switch to heat pumps as the only green enough option for people with no access to district heating.
The cost of the ban is estimated at over 9 billion euros, or $10 billion, annually until 2028. After that, according to the Scholz government, costs will drop by almost half thanks to a ramp-up in heat pump production and a scale-up of wind and solar capacity."
why would pete buttigieg care ... he flies private
he also has much bigger priorities including making the roads less racist
You can street shit anywhere you like except on a holy rainbow crosswalk.
"So, the answer's yes. I think the IRS is a corrupt organization and I think it's not a friend to the average citizen or taxpayer," DeSantis responded. "We need something totally different."
.
"I've supported all of the single rate proposals, I think they would be a huge improvement over the current system and I would be welcoming to take this tax system, chunk it out the window and do something that's more favorable to the average folks."
What an authoritarian Hitler.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/desantis-welcome-bill-abolish-corrupt-irs-need-something-totally-different
He's the Hitleryest. Until 2028, anyway.
Literally worse than Trump.
More cops behaving badly. This time in Australia.
95-Year-Old With Dementia Dies After Police Use Stun Gun On Her In Australia Nursing Home
Local community members have criticized the use of force against the 95-pound woman in New South Wales.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/95-year-old-with-dementia-dies-after-police-use-stun-gun-on-her-in-australia-nursing-home_n_646fd9dde4b02325c5da30f4
Just how threatened was the officer who tasered her?
So this 95-pound woman with dementia came ambling towards the officer, in a walker, wielding a steak knife, and that was enough for the officer to whip out the stun gun.
I guess we should be grateful that the officer didn't use the real gun.
More cops behaving badly. This time in Australia.
Wait'll you see how they acted during lockdowns.
That was fine because they were just quarantine camps! Cops didn't even shoot them when they took non infected people to the camps! Sure they assaulted many, but they didn't shoot!
The FBI is a rogue agency. Prove me wrong.
Why? Because they obtained a FISA warrant to investigate the Trump campaign after an attempt to open a back-channel to the Kremlin?
Hell, they didn't go far enough.
Flynn would have swung by his neck in 1953 for what he did.
"Because they obtained a FISA warrant to investigate the Trump campaign after an attempt to open a back-channel to the Kremlin?"
You sure keep trying to push that tall tale despite the Mueller and Durham reports thoroughly discrediting the narrative associated with it.
Is it because you're too lazy to change up, or did your boss forget to remove it from your talking points?
Well I don't know if this video proves "rogue agency". But she clearly was either not prepared for the committee meeting, and/or was rather dismissive of the Senator's questions.
That was astonishing. She is in charge of the function that the Durham report addresses, but doesn't know anything about the Durham report....
And she testified that they layed in extra agents for "surge capability" in light of changing threats to elections from various foreign powers.... But has no idea what surge capabilities are and changes it to be "they are permanent" with no idea of what they do, apparently.
I have worked for executives like her. No idea what we even make, but demanding "results".
Hoo-boy. We ain't getting our money's worth there, even if she snt corrupt.
Yeah, she is not exactly the sharpest tool in the drawer.
> I have worked for executives like her. No idea what we even make, but demanding “results”.
"You see me now, the veteran, of a thousand psychic wars..."
Yeah, same, bro. Those people suck to work for.
How can the FBI be a rogue agency when it's acting in accord with 99% of the rest of the administrative state?
Hey Peanuts - what is Tim Scott's solution to the "black violence" problem? As Blaek Republican candidate he needs to address the issue.
Thanks, Peanuts.
"Blaek"
You're just itching to call him the N-word, aren't you.
what is
Tim Scott’sJoe Biden’s solution to the “black violence” problem?Notice how often the news media mentions that Senator Scott is the "only Black Republican" in the Senate. The Democrats have twice as many (two, that is), Senators Booker and Warnock.
Interesting story on the IRS whistleblower. Worth a read.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/irs-whistleblower-gary-shapley-hunter-biden-b2346365.html
Gosh, frightened of standing before the Senate Democrats? I really can’t imagine why.
Second IRS whistleblower who raised Hunter Biden concerns claims retaliation
From Jeff’s own hit piece:
“Another federal law enforcement veteran, ex-FBI special agent Peter Strzok, told The Independent in a phone interview that the most likely explanation for why an entire IRS CI team would be removed from the Hunter Biden investigation en masse is that they’ve completed the investigation and it is now up to prosecutors to decide what to do with the evidence they’ve obtained..
Strzok, who once served as the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, also suggested that the fact that only two of the investigators have chosen to go to Congress with allegations of favouritism towards Hunter Biden is a sign that the special agents in question have an axe to grind.”
Now imagine treating Peter Strzok, who was fired by the FBI for manufacturing evidence, lying under oath and conspiring to commit fraud, all because he actually did have an axe to grind, as a reliable source on this issue.
Imagine not telling your readers about Strzok’s criminality on this exact issue.
It’s like interviewing a bank robber about whether or not someone else robbed the bank instead.
You can see the gaslights in Jeff’s article from outer space.
Gad damnit you beat me to it. I was trying to play a little more coy to see where it would go. But oh well.
Well, Jeff's pretending he's got me on mute, so he'll probably still rush to Strzok's defence in reply to you.
"Play a little more coy", huh? Now who is arguing in bad faith?
I should have known. Every accusation is a confession.
When you accused me yesterday of falsifying my own argument in order to entrap Trump supporters, that was a lie. But it was a confession of what you are doing now. You don't really give a shit about this whistleblower or the article, do you? It's just a great opportunity for you to try to generate some quotes for your dossier that you can use as 'gotcha' quotes YEARS in the future. Isn't that right?
You want to bait me into defending Strzok or attacking the whistleblower so that if it turns out the whistleblower is correct, you can use that to bash me over the head forever and ever. That is your real purpose here in this discussion, isn't it?
Forget it. I thought you might be someone who is capable of having an intelligent discussion, but as it turns out, you're just a Tulpa with a better command of the English language.
"Every accusation is a confession."
Hahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahaha
To be fair to Jeff, when Leftists accuse someone of a thing, it's because they're actually doing the thing they accuse their opponents of.
Since that's all he knows, well . . .
"But it was a confession of what you are doing now. "
No it isn't. YOU brought up the article. YOU presented it as interesting. I read the article that you presented, in good faith. And being half familiar with the subject, I immediately recognized that it was trying to smear the whistleblower with the statements of someone who has a demonstrated history being involved in EXACTLY this type of thing- like taking the analysis of an Enron executive to explain why nothing at Worldcom was out of order.
Now, yes, I played coy. I wanted to know if you actually noticed this, and that is why you posted it, or if you felt it was interesting for some other reason. The only way I could determine that is by seeing if you noticed what I noticed.
" You don’t really give a shit about this whistleblower or the article"
And here comes the mind reading again.
No it isn’t.
Yeah I think it was. I think you are the one playing entrapment games.
What is missing from Jeff's link is the DoJ reportedly threatened him with jail time for disclosing confidential documents to the committee.
What part was the most interesting to you?
For me the most interesting part was that the Independent (hah!) tries to cast doubt on an IRS Agent's first hand account of what is happening by providing the analysis of this FBI veteran:
"Another federal law enforcement veteran, ex-FBI special agent Peter Strzok, told The Independent in a phone interview that the most likely explanation for why an entire IRS CI team would be removed from the Hunter Biden investigation en masse is that they’ve completed the investigation and it is now up to prosecutors to decide what to do with the evidence they’ve obtained."
I can't believe the chutzpa of these guys. This FBI agent is going to tell us that we shouldn't believe there is something fishy going on in an IRS investigation? REALLY?!
I thought the entire article was an interesting discussion about the whistleblower. I never claimed it was the absolute truth. Only that it merited a read.
It was a slimey and dishonest hit piece against a whistleblower, that quoted guilty parties to the crime as if they were dispassionate observers and misrepresented their involvement.
But you knew that.
So that I don't get accused of "mind reading" I genuinely want to understand what you thought was interesting here. I found it interesting that the Independent tried providing Strzok's "expert analysis" to show that the Whistleblower was incorrect.
What was interesting to you? Because that seems to me to be a disingenuous hit piece. It would be like the Fox saying, "Actually when hens go missing from the hen house, in my experience it is because they had a good conversation, and then went on a trip."
So that I don’t get accused of “mind reading” I genuinely want to understand what you thought was interesting here.
Based on your demonstrated history, and your post directly above, I don’t believe you. I think you are lying. I think YOU were trying to entrap ME into some scheme to generate more gotcha quotes.
Is that the only reason you even respond to me now? To generate more fodder for your dossier?
Oh why do I even ask. You'll just lie in your answer to that question too.
...
For those looking to the FAA to get on with reforms and upgrades and just "do better"... Let's look to the example NASA and Congress have set.
The SLS was designed to use existing components and technology from the Space shuttle. This was explicitly sold as being necessary to save time and money.
Well, some $30 billion later, it costs $4.5 billion per launch. And luckily Biden appointed the father of SLS in the Senate to be NASA administrator. He helpfully signed a contract to keep building and flying them through 2050. You know, to guarantee that we get the best price.
Well, just this last week we learned that the contract for making the engines - the RS-25 hydrolox engine that was reusable on the shuttle but is not on SLS - would be experiencing some serious cost overruns.
$6 billion in overruns, to be exact. For just the engines.
And the very same week, we learned that SpaceX is about to reach $5 billion spent on developing their Starship rocket system. This is a fully reusable rocket that will cost as little as single digit millions to fly (internal SpaceX costs). It is designed to fly multiple times per day. (SLS sill be flying once per year, at most.).
So, the entire Starship program is less than the cost overruns of the NASA main engine program for SLS.
And the cost of a single SLS launch is now approximately the same as the entire Starship development program.
The starship will be able to deliver over 100 tons to leo, deliver humans to the moon, and eventually land cargo on any body in the solar system.
And the cost per unit of these reusable rockets will be less than the cost of the engines on a single SLS.
So yeah, we know where keeping air traffic control in-house leads, and we know what spinning it off could do.
Yeah, I'm still blaming SouthWest for selling 8 more tickets than their plane actually seats.
Honorable mention to the TSA asshole who decided he needed to feel up my balls because my wallet set off their detector. 'We need to check for wallet knives.' 'It's a thing'.
Right.
I work online, go to school full-time, and have earned $64,000 so far this year. Through an online business opportunity I learned about, I've made a bunch of money. It's really extremely user-friendly, so I'm really delighted I found out about it. I work in this field. BONUS: Good luck.
Click here for the richsalary website. http://www.richsalary.com
"The Federal Aviation Administration says that it has only about 80 percent of the air traffic controllers it needs nationwide, with some regions of the country falling far short of that. The air traffic control facility covering New York City area airports only has about half the controllers it needs, the agency reported in March."
I can't believe the author actually fell for the old "we need more FTEs" song and dance from the government! The government *always* wants more bodies and *always* claims they NEED more taxpayer-funded positions in order to become "adequately staffed". No matter how many they have, it will never be enough.
Don’t worry, AI will handle air traffic control 10 times better. Just hope you’re not on a flight while it’s still in training mode.
I blame air traffic delays on the fact that there are far too few airports. Stop dreaming of high speed trains in a country that’s 3,000 miles across. Planes are already 3 to 10 times faster (600 mph vs. 60 to 200 mph). Build more airports.
Every time they try, "nimby." But there are plenty of regional airports, former military bases, etc. Even so, when an airport - say, Wilmington, DE - gets some new regional air service, it seems to last a couple months and then goes away because it doesn't serve enough hubs or something.
Build more? The one's already built are closing shop. Thanks to massive Gov-Gun interference. Only Gun threats can stop such a useful mode of transportation. As it has done time and time again.
What gets me is that anytime this subject is discussed they leave out an important part. In 1994, bids were being accepted to upgrade the Air Traffic Control system. In 1995 the request for bids was cancelled. Right after that the money in the Airport Improvement Fund was moved, along with the money from every other designated account, into the General Fund. Anybody remember the "Budget Surplus"? Now when anybody mentions upgrading the ATS system, they get either "let the airlines pay for it" or "We're not subsidizing the rich." thrown back at them.
Satta King game is illegal in some states of India, so these states do not have a fair place to play, so Satta Raja is played in India secretly. When the Satta king is played, it is called the black Satta. And the one who wins the black market is said to be the Black satta.
Delhi Satta offers more than 90 times the bet amount to gamblers in most Satta games and this is the reason why most Indians prefer to invest their capital in Delhi Satta Matka games. Multiple players change their employment day by day by playing Satta king online.
I hope that you will get this refund. Actually I think that if someone has the same problem then you may check this site as that detailed article has already helped me a lot with this similar case. Be careful and read all the necessary laws, then everything will be fine for sure. Best wishes.