Federal Officials Can Keep Pressing Tech Platforms To Remove Content for Now, Court Says
Plus: GOP candidate defends “limited role of government” in parental decisions for transgender kids, some common sense about Diet Coke and cancer, and more…

Court puts order blocking Biden administration from pressing for social media content moderation on hold. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put on temporary hold an order blocking federal officials from pressuring social media companies to suppress certain accounts, posts, or types of information. "A temporary administrative stay is GRANTED until further orders of the court," states the 5th Circuit's order, issued Friday.
It deferred ruling on the Biden administration's motion for a stay pending appeal "to the oral argument merits panel which receives this case," which means those judges will decide whether to lift the current administrative stay or keep things on pause until the full appeals process plays out.
The court also expedited the case to the next available oral argument slot, meaning an appeals court panel will hold a full hearing on the case as soon as possible.
It did not elaborate on its reasoning for issuing the temporary stay.
First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere recently wrote for Reason about this case (Missouri v. Biden), suggesting that "the political noise surrounding the case is distracting attention from the important First Amendment principles at stake."
Corn-Revere cites Judge Richard Posner in Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart: A public official who "threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff's First Amendment rights, regardless of whether the threatened punishment comes in the form of the use (or, misuse) of the defendant's direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority…or in some less-direct form." (In that case, an Illinois sheriff pressured credit card companies to stop doing business with Backpage.)
A ruling that federal authorities must limit flagging online speech to encourage its suppression or removal by tech platforms should be viewed by free speech defenders as an unambiguously good thing.
But the lower court's decision in Missouri v. Biden—the decision now on temporary hold—has attracted a lot of criticism in some corners that should know better.
For instance, The Washington Post called the initial order "a victory for conservatives" and warned that it "could have a major chilling effect on contacts between tech companies…and a broad swath of federal agencies"—as if that's a bad thing! The Post piece, and many others, portray the ruling as something only the political right could support.
In the lower court's ruling, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty banned all Department of Justice and FBI employees plus many federal public health officials from "meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content," and "specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech."
That's a good thing—even if the motives of the parties who spurred this decision might not be so pure, and even if Doughty's ruling was a little too credulous of their claims.
The case was brought by the Republican attorneys general (A.G.s) of Louisiana and Missouri, as part of a beef with the Biden administration over pressuring tech companies to take down some conservatives' posts. "State A.G.s are unlikely defenders of the First Amendment given the members of that fraternity who make their political bones by mounting anti-speech crusades," notes Corn-Revere. And on "the same day Missouri v. Biden came down, [Missouri A.G. Andrew] Bailey was one of seven state A.G.s who sent a threatening letter to Target warning that the sale of LGBTQ-themed merchandise as part of a 'Pride' campaign might violate state obscenity laws."
So, Bailey is not exactly a stalwart and unwavering defender of First Amendment principles.
And Doughty's opinion "credulously accepts plaintiffs' claims that almost all of the contacts with government officials (and some civilians) were coercive, and it uncritically accepts assertions that 'only conservative viewpoints were allegedly suppressed,'" notes Corn-Revere. Doughty also makes a number of other puzzling assertions in his (now on-hold) 155-page ruling.
None of this has helped "the perception that he has signed on to a side in the culture war."
But it doesn't mean that Doughty's decision is totally without merits, either.
"The district court's ruling in Missouri v. Biden rightly recognizes the serious threat government pressure tactics pose to free speech online," as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression put it.
This sort of backhanded pressure on social media has come to be known as "jawboning." Robby Soave took a deep look at the issue for Reason's March 2023 cover story.
Perhaps the 5th Circuit's temporary hold on the order is "the right call given the scope of the order and the many questions it raises," suggests Corn-Revere. But "while the court of appeals should clarify and narrow the terms of the injunction, reversing it would be a mistake. It doesn't require an active imagination to predict how far a future administration (of either party) might venture if the courts greenlighted this level of governmental meddling in private moderation decisions."
As Posner wrote in Dart, a government body "is entitled to say what it wants to say—but only within limits." Getting more clarity on those limits can only be good for free speech, no matter which point of the political spectrum you're on.
FREE MINDS
GOP candidate defends "limited role of government" in parental decisions for transgender kids. Reason's Joe Lancaster offers a highlight from last Friday's Republican Party presidential forum. The forum was presented by Blaze Media and hosted by Tucker Carlson.
Carlson's second guest was former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a long-shot candidate currently polling at 1 percent in a statistical tie with "Someone else." Carlson's first question related to Hutchinson's 2021 veto of H.B. 1570, an Arkansas bill that would have prohibited medical professionals from providing any medical treatment to minors related to gender transitioning, including puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgeries. It also did not include a grandfather clause, meaning any minors who were on hormone therapy when the law went into effect would either have to stop or seek treatment across state lines. (State lawmakers overrode Hutchinson's veto, but the law is currently on hold pending litigation.)
"Have you reassessed your view on it since then?" Carlson asked.
Hutchinson stood behind his decision. "What I believe in is that parents ought to raise their children," he said. "I believe that God created genders and that there should not be any confusion on your gender. But if there is confusion, then parents ought to be the ones that guide the children."
To be clear, Hutchinson is no progressive radical on the issue: He accused some public schools of "pushing transgenderism" and said, "If there had a been a bill that said you should not ever have transgender surgery as a minor, I would sign that in a minute, because no parent should be able to consent to that permanent change." (Under American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, surgery for minors should only be pursued "on a case-by-case basis" and include "multidisciplinary input from medical, mental health, and surgical providers as well as from the adolescent and family.")
But unexpectedly for a candidate running to be the leader of the Republican Party, Hutchinson offered a qualified yet nuanced defense of transgender care for minors from the perspective of limiting the role of government and supporting the rights of parents.
"I believe in a limited role of government," Hutchinson said. "I don't think that California ought to be able to tell parents, 'You need to have gender-affirming care for children.' The government should not do that. And in the same way, let's keep the government out of it unless it's [an] extreme case, and let's let parents guide the children."
FREE MARKETS
Some common sense about Diet Coke and cancer. The World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is once again warning that the widely used artificial sweetener aspartame could possibly cause cancer. Aspartame is found in many diet soft drinks and an array of other popular sugar-free goods. "But before anyone panics about whether their favorite sugar-free treat will give them cancer, it's essential to understand what the IARC does and doesn't do," writes Guy Bentley, director of consumer freedom at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this magazine):
The IARC examines products and activities that may represent a cancer hazard and places them in one of four groups depending on the strength of the evidence they examine. Group 1 is carcinogenic to humans and includes cigarettes—but also hot dogs. Group 2a is probably carcinogenic and includes red meat and night shift work. Group 2b is possibly carcinogenic, and Group 3 is not classifiable.
The IARC placed aspartame in Group 2b, meaning there's weak evidence, and they can't say for sure whether there is, in fact, any cancer hazard. For context, pickled vegetables and aloe vera are also in Group 2b. The IARC examines cancer hazards even if they're extremely unlikely. It doesn't examine risk, which is what truly matters to consumers when making their everyday choices.
In conjunction with the IARC's investigation, the WHO's Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) released a recommendation on safe intake (considering all possible health risks, not just cancer risk). It concluded that its previous threshold of 40 milligrams per kilogram as an acceptable daily intake was sound.
"The average American male weighs 197.9 pounds, this translates to an acceptable daily intake of 3,588 mg of aspartame, meaning it would take around 18 diet sodas a day to surpass the JECFA's guidelines," notes Bentley. "Even the heaviest consumers of diet drinks come nowhere close to meeting this threshold. These guidelines are also significantly below any dosage linked to possible harm in animal studies."
QUICK HITS
• Video footage released by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department shows a deputy twice punching a woman in the face as she holds a small baby. Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna said this was "completely unacceptable" and that the case would be sent to county prosecutors for possible criminal charges.
• RIP to Anchor Steam beer, which "may have changed the course of the entire American beer industry."
• A Virginia law requiring age verification for visitors to web porn platforms is now in effect. The law led Pornhub to block access to people in Virginia, reports WTOP News, and "more people are searching for Virtual Private Networks (VPN) in Virginia than in any other state in the country, according to Google Trends."
• "Twitter has changed the settings of every user with open DMs, blocking non-Twitter Blue subscribers from messaging them," notes Mashable.
• RFK Jr. "is — as he has been for his entire career — a lunatic and a crank," suggests Josh Barro. But Barro also argues that the whole idea of a Kennedy "dynasty" is "absurd." Dynasties should be "built around good families who share positive traits, like sobriety, thrift, and public-spiritedness," writes Barro. "The Kennedys are the opposite of this — they are a cadre of reckless, womanizing, substance-abusing mediocrities of middling IQ, who have produced a staggering array of displays of bad judgment and poor character over the decades."
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
Video footage released by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department shows a deputy twice punching a woman in the face as she holds a small baby. Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna said this was "completely unacceptable...
...why let the child skate???"
Talk about a complete lack of training. Did he just miss the kid and hit the mother instead? The proper training is to hit the kid with fists and to tase or shoot the mother.
No word about dogs or bears in trunks?
Video footage released by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department shows a deputy twice punching a woman in the face as she holds a small baby.
She's just lucky her name isn't Vicki Weaver.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Court puts order blocking Biden administration from pressing for social media content moderation on hold.
If the Founders thought speech was so important why did they wait to put it all the way at the end of the Constitution?
Great, the 5th Circuit is indulging the totalitarian tendencies of the current holder of executive power. Just wonderful.
I’m making over $13,000 a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
.
.
For details visit————————>> https://FinancialMainstay.blogspot.com
Or, you know, they issued a temporary stay until oral arguments are heard. That is what is actually happening, but it lacks drama.
This matter should be settled by legislation, not the courts.
Why? It violates the First Amendment period. Legislation does not override the Constitution period.
We can use courts to protect the Constitution or other, dramatically more violent, methods.
But that is the problem: there is no clear First Amendment violation.
First of all, if a Federal employee merely suggests social moderation there is no clear coercion. In many of the cases presented as "censorship" there was a cozy relationship between the social media company and the Federal employees, so even if we strictly adhere to the NAP there was no coercion. The social media company willingly went along with the suggestions. (And there are also cases where they didn't go along with the suggestions, and suffered no consequences.)
Another problem is that the injunction is self-contradictory about exceptions (read the Bob Corn-Revere article for more details).
Second, if we consider elected officials expressing what they want a social media company to do, there is a strong First Amendment argument that it is the elected official's right to do so as an individual and as a representative of the voters.
How is it not a First Amendment violation? If some government agency or official is asking a (pseudo-)private company to censor or block or otherwise curtail individual expression that they would be expressly prohibited from doing on their own, as established by law and prior rulings, they are still in the wrong there.
I suppose that you might say that a mob boss is 'just expressing his individual opinion' when he says 'nice family you got there, be a shame if anything happened to them.'
How is it not a First Amendment violation?
I just explained, in detail.
If some government agency or official is asking
You just used the word "asking". They were asking for was not something they were "expressly prohibited from doing on their own". That is precisely what I am advocating: pass a law that clear prohibits the Federal employees from even "asking".
I suppose that you might say that a mob boss is ‘just expressing his individual opinion’ when he says ‘nice family you got there, be a shame if anything happened to them.’
There are actual laws concerning mob tactics. When mob bosses are taken down in court, they don't use the First Amendment to do so. They had to resort to tax evasion to get Al Capone.
I agree we need that law. But it's a violation with or without the clarifying law. Government must not be involved at all in determining the legitimacy of any speech.
Why do you want benefit of the doubt going to government institutions instead of the citizens?
The way government was set up was for government to say what they can do, not what they can't do.
Where is the executive empowered to censor people Mike? What law? What part of the constitution?
Yeah, this. If there is any doubt as to whether government is operating within it's bounds, the benefit of the doubt should go to the individual, not the government. The way it is now, the government can get away with pretty much anything for a few years while it works its way through the courts. The very first act whenever there is a plausible case against government action should be to pause the government action until the question is resolved.
If a government agent would "suggest" to a newspaper not to run a story, the Pentagon Papers case would suggest that this would be a violation of law. I see no reason for any distinction between a newspaper and a social media platform. The idea that a government agent has a free speech right to say something t he government is barred from doing is a joke in poor taste. The Biden Administration's general inclination to dictatorial tactics is unacceptable.
Government officials do occasionally ask newspapers to delay printing a story, so it must be legal to do so.
If someone does something, it must be legal?
No, of course not.
I doubt either you or I are experts on rules applying to what government officials can or cannot legally say to newspapers, and that is compounded by our not discussing any specific case here.
Idiot
That's definitely at least a gray area. Government officials also illegally leak to newspapers all the time. Something being accepted and normal doesn't mean it's necessarily legal.
I do remember something about columnist Jack Anderson publishing a story that got a CIA asset killed.
Elected officials can say whatever they want. That's not the main problem here. Members of executive agencies, not so much.
There is always coercion when a government agent "requests" something of you. The implicit threat of force is always there. There should be no official government position on any of this besides staying out of any kind of speech or published content moderation or regulation.
Step out of the car, please
Personally I’m shocked to see Laursen uncritically adopt the Dem Party talking points. Shocked.
Whoever could have predicted that?
No idea where you are coming from. It is overwhelmingly clear that the government suggested, persuaded and threatened various media to inhibit some information, censor other information and people. This is not in argument at all. Read any trivial list of the government e-mails.
The government has no business affecting what other people or companies say. If the government wants to make it's own statement, annotated as the government, fine.
Even suggesting another person or idea be censored is a CLEAR violation of the First Amendment. An argument to the contrary is not based on freedom, the Constitution or Libertarianism.
It’s already been settled re: 1st Amendment, and previous rulings that the government can’t get a private actor to do something that would be unconstitutional for the government to do.
If the tech companies (or newspapers, or in a libertarian world, the owner of the local square) do it without even being “asked” because their ideology lines up with that of the people in power, we have a completely different set of problems. But it’s still a huge fucking problem that some people here insist on burying their heads in the sand about.
The matter was settled when the Bill of Rights became law.
Dee’s the one true libertarian folks.
Will Mike triple down and blame Republicans for not advancing the law in the senate? Will he continue to ignore the constitution supercedes laws. I'll get the popcorn.
Waiting for Had team R won enough senate seats, they could have advanced the bill so it is really their fault for the legislation stalling.
That’s his funniest recent take, and he’s expressed it several times:
Why won’t Republicans move on a bill in the Democrat controlled Senate?
He’s really that dumb that he thinks he can get away with blaming Republicans for what Democrats won’t do.
Yes
He’s not dumb. He’s just a mendacious cunt.
I’m not even sure he believes half the crap he tries to peddle here.
He plays his role, and sometimes that role is to say stupid shit because that’s still better than admitting the left is wrong.
"sometimes"?
It’s a democrat trope. My far left aunt does that frequently. Directly blaming republicans for not passing part of the d eco rat agenda that democrats failed to pass when democrats had the numbers to make it happen.
Err on the side of liberty and continue to block government agents as arguments play out.
why did they wait to put it all the way at the end of the Constitution?
Adderall shortage?
You jest, but I'm just waiting for some asshat to earnestly make that argument.
"If free speech was so important, why was it put in an amendment, DERP!" - Idiots in the near future
Yeah, and the rejoinder of 'same goes for Women's voting rights and minorities being considered as people' right?
You can't just burn down one part of the house. Well, I guess you can if you don't actually argue in good faith.
I guess you can if you don’t actually argue in good faith.
And the types of people who will make that argument don't argue in good faith.
"common sense about Diet Coke and cancer"
Cancer, shmancer.
You'd think the revolting taste of Diet Coke would be sufficient deterrence.
#LikeDrinkingBatteryAcid
Be Less White while consuming less calories.
The 'common sense' about 'Diet Coke' has to do with obesity not cancer. And the problem is that 'Diet Coke' consumption leads to obesity - not to cancer.
It is not a coincidence that the average American male weighs 198 pounds now - and weighed 171 pounds when those Diet sweeteners were introduced in the early 1970's.
Pick them cherries, JFree.
That's pretty clearly due to inactivity caused by sitting and staring at screens all day. Video games, cable, internet porn, Netflix, etc. all replaced going out and doing stuff.
And fructose is definitely the leading cause of the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Not aspartame. For a quadruple-vaxxed, follow-the-science type I'm surprised at you.
And the 30% increase in portions for meals.
You’re not wrong. In fact, dinner plates were roughly 9 inches in diameter in the late fifties. Now they’re around 11-12 inches. To accommodate larger portions. I noticed this when I inherited an old set of china from family. The plates were definitely smaller.
On balance, peol,e also ate healthier, less processed food back then too.
No it really isn’t the main cause. The main cause is that diet sweeteners trigger the ‘sweet’ taste buds on the tongue – every time one drinks fluid. Those taste buds trigger an initial release of insulin which in turn tells the body to store fats and absorb glucose for energy. Without the glucose – you just get hungry.
This entire process of trying to trick the body merely helps create insulin resistance and leptin resistance – and confuses drinking water and eating food so people don’t even know what actual hunger is anymore and with continual insulin it creates continual snacking.
You can argue until you are blue in the face, but the majority of people with an M.D. disagree with you on that point. Inactivity is the main driver, and just about every study I've ever seen confirms that.
The studies that disagree with that premise amusingly still acknowledge it as a main driver, but then take a lot of twists and turns to arrive at some other conclusion.
The fact is that just drinking diet soda is not going to make you obese, and no study I'm aware of has ever made that claim. I'd be interested to see what study you're talking about. Mainly because your past track record on citing scientific studies is...dubious at best.
Inactivity is NOT the driver of obesity. It is the driver of reduced energy consumption. That’s it.
What is going haywire is the signalling of leptin and insulin. Those two at the same time are a conflicting problem. Call it, over time, resistance to both. That continual trickle of insulin – via snacks but even more so via the more frequent sips of ‘sweet’ ‘diet’ crap – destroys the timing of eating v not-eating.
Oh - and if doctors actually measured blood leptin and blood insulin directly the problem would be easier to see. Measuring blood sugar ain't that.
Some folks are trying daily fasting to break that. Not sure if it works.
As for fructose - yes that is processed by the liver instead of being chemically turned directly into glucose by saliva/stomach. BUT - why do you think we have taste buds for 'sweet'? We don't taste glucose as 'sweet'. We taste fruit as sweet - but that is fructose. So essentially we are tricking our body again. Pretending we are preparing it for fruit sugar many many times per day - while not delivering anything most of the time and disconnecting the glucose delivery from the insulin releases. Fruit is how we are supposed to get our sweet tooth satisfied. Not grains and not water/fluids.
Your first statement is correct. It is much better for you to stand up and hump the Fleshlight or sexdoll while watching Xhamster.com or Bonded on Netflix.
🙂
As for fructose, my Doctor's told me when I got the Type 2 Diabetes diagnosis that suger is sugar, regardless of the type of source and for me, the portion size must be controlled.
Fortunately, product labels are very helpful on controlling portion size and if you can get a prescription of Mounjaro, that is a real boost to the metabolism, an appetite suppressant, and saver on the grocery spending!
With Mounjaro, I don't really have sugar cravings any more, though a tiny amount of real sugar tastes better than any amount of Aspartame.
It’s also all the refined sugar and processed food. I gave up sodas, diet included, back in 2006. I didn’t like what it was doing to my digestion. I also avoid most processed foods. Just doing that and following the diabetic model for meals caused me to finally lose the lockdown weight.
All those things are true about the Kennedy's, but Left leaning Boomers still idolize them and the mythology of JFK's alleged "Camelot" administration.
Perhaps it was JFK’s coke that was found at the white house.
There’s no way Bubba or W didn’t find Jack’s coke stash before.
"It's only a model.". "SHH!"
https://youtu.be/SQCArh_R9dY
https://twitter.com/SCMountainGoat/status/1680810570688389120?t=pYnGD7eUIHSGk5bZBXjVdg&s=19
In the face of immense societal pressure, Only 19% of the country refused the Covid-19 "Vaccine", according to USAFacts.org.
I commend all of you for being - in a way - the best society has to offer.
Lets recap what you were put through:
You were called AntiVax and Anti-Sciece.
You were told you would face "A Winter of Extreme Illness and Death", by the President of The United States of America.
You were called "Super Spreaders", and "Plague Rats".
You weren't allowed to eat inside.
You weren't allowed to fly.
You were blamed for the spread of Covid, and the death of the elderly.
You were told you have to continue wearing masks while the vaccinated could remove them, though the exact opposite happened.
The President told you "We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin."
Many celebrities were calling to strip you of your healthcare, and worse.
You were pushed out of social circles, and ostracized by family members.
Your employment was under threat by the Federal and State governments, forcing the Supreme Court to step in.
Nobody - in my 40 years on this planet - has been more discriminated against and demonized, in this country, than the unvaccinated in 2021 and 2022.
All of this was done in the name of "The Greater Good."
Covid cases were over reported.
Covid deaths were over reported.
If someone died "From Covid" within 2 weeks of getting "The Vaccine", it was counted as an "Unvaccinated Covid Death".
Alternative treatments were available, and an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the "Vaccine" never should have been Issued.
The "Vaccine" was never tested to stop transmission, which it NEVER did, making any "Vaccine Mandate" not only illogical, but completely "Anti-Science".
The CDC, FDA, WHO, NIH, and the entire medical establishment lied.
They literally changed the definition of the word "Vaccine".
Lock downs did nothing.
School closures did nothing.
Masks did nothing.
All I mentioned above was suppressed by every big tech platform on the internet, thereby denying US Citizens informed consent.
Relationships and lives were ruined.
Good and innocent people were needlessly destroyed, all while being called the worst names imaginable.
Still, the unvaccinated stood strong.
Auto Immune Diseases, cancers, cardiovascular problems, and excess deaths are all on the rise.
The "Vaccine" never stopped transmission.
There's no evidence to show it ever slowed the spread.
There's no evidence to show the "Vaccines" being a net positive at all.
In fact, evidence tends to suggest the opposite. More so as time goes on.
Not only were the unvaccinated right, they stayed true to their convictions under immense societal pressure.
The largest psychological test ever conducted on humanity just took place, and the Unvaccinated past.
Did you?
Some obese fatties demanded that others get the questionably useful vax and boosters because just two years to flatten their curves was asking too much.
When I was a kid we had one fatty in our class and she was mocked mercilessly. Now, everyone is fat but one skinny kid. Western society is doomed when the fat and lazy generation ages into leadership roles.
All the stress caused by the last few years has been turning me into a fatty unfortunately.
I think that's another, highly underrated, puzzle piece to the obesity problem. There's a lot of people out there who work very stressful jobs where they sit at a desk most of the day. In the past, stress eating might be offset by moving about on an assembly line, swinging a hammer on a rail line, or some other activity. Today, it's not. In some ways (at least from my anecdotal evidence), working at a desk all day is more stressful than working away from a desk, being physically active.
I think just being active helps. Working out regularly helps both physical and mental health. Easier to be active if it is baked into your job and day.
Maybe the worst and saddest part of all is knowing that the overwhelming majority of sheeple are going to bend over and take it in the rear with barely a whimper all over again the next time around that they try to pull this shit.
Most regular human beings absolutely hate doing much in the way of deep thinking and introspection and have chosen to deal with the hell of the Covid tyranny by basically forgetting that it ever happened.
Yep. I’ve had conversations with people where I called them out for their responses, and they completely acted like they didn’t act the way they did.
They probably have convinced themselves they really didn’t.
Did you needle them about it?
All of that is undeniably true but that Operation Warp Speed sure was cool!
@reason.com
I got vaccinated and boosted. When I did get covid, it was like a mild cold. I'm good with that.
It was a mild cold for the majority of people vaccinated or not. Nearly half were asymptomatic.
But the tiger rock i have works as I’ve never been attacked by one.
That's what the mRNA vaccine is supposed to do. Despite the claims by ignorant people who insist that it's only a vaccine if it prevents you from getting sick, this vaccine gives your body a head start in fighting off the disease if you do get sick. And it doesn't matter which variant. As opposed to traditional vaccines that only target specific variants, leaving you shit-out-of-luck if you catch a different one.
That's not how it was sold. It's how it's being rationalized.
I don't care how it was sold. I'm just stating facts. And the fact is that the vaccine gives your body a head start, making the infections less severe. Yes that's not the same as a traditional vaccine, and it sucks that it was originally sold as one because that created doubt as to it being worth anything at all.
https://reason.com/2020/12/08/fda-staff-review-confirms-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-safe-and-highly-effective/
Got a cite for that, Sarc?
Yeah, it's down below. But you already rejected the facts because you don't like the person presenting them.
It had nothing to do with liking or disliking the author, Sarc, it is a matter of the content and what the author has written. Yet, you yourself are guilty of what you are accusing me of. Go down another 40 and pass out.
Go down another 40 and pass out.
Enjoy your circle-jerk with your troll buddies.
Pour sarc.
Projection from mr conspiracy theory himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeRsyWCM5gE
It's not what mRNA vaccines were 'supposed to do'.
It might be what they 'do'. Among other things.
Yes that’s not the same as a traditional vaccine...
I'm not sure it is any different from any traditional vaccine, except perhaps in degree of effectiveness. All any vaccine against a virus does is pre-expose your immune system to a non-deadly variant of or substitute for a virus, so when you get hit with a load of the real virus your immune system will respond quickly.
With any vaccine you can still get sick initially if the initial viral load is overwhelming enough, or your immune system can fail if it is weak because you are in poor health or old.
Take the flu dead-virus vaccine as an example. They guess on three strains and make the vaccine for those three strains. If you get the shot and they guess it right, you won’t get sick. If they guess wrong then the vaccine is useless.
Now take the COVID mRNA vaccine. Instead of targeting specific strains, it targets the entire family. While it doesn’t prevent you from getting sick, it does give your body a head start on fighting the infection.
So if they make a dead-virus COVID vaccine, they'd need a new one for every new variant. On the plus side you wouldn't get sick if you get the vaccine for that particular variant. On the other hand you need a lot more jabs.
The flu virus that is estimated at 50% effective from year to year and not mandated?
Mike that's a lot of mushy word speak there. It's ok to not have to be contrary on all points others try to make.
I was actually building on what sarcasmic wrote, not contradicting, and what was mushy about it?
100% safe and effective with no downsides!
The vaccines were without question promoted as a "firebreak" solution to interfere with transmission. Which they fail at miserably.
Which means it's not a vaccine, it's a therapeutic. You're better off contracting Covid (which at this point is a mere common cold) than taking the mRNA "vaccines".
Wrong again. A therapeutic treats the symptoms, not the cause. This vaccine, by giving your immune system a head start, treats the cause.
So, more of a prophylactic?
But Biden had to call it a vaccine to sell the public in the massive grift with big pharma. If it’s sold as a prophylactic then it get compared to alternatives like the hydroxychloroquine/Z-pack/zinc cocktail. Which wasn’t going to make $ billions for all the insiders and campaign donors.
Which is why it was politicized. For that, and because Trump off handedly mentioned it.
Wait it treats raccoon dogs????!!!!!
"That’s what the mRNA vaccine is supposed to do. Despite the claims by ignorant people who insist that it’s only a vaccine if it prevents you from getting sick, this vaccine gives your body a head start in fighting off the disease if you do get sick."
That's complete and utter bullshit. A lie that comes from the need to rationalize after the fact.
Actual vaccines confer immunity and aim to block transmission. Period.
That's what they've done for the last 200 years, and that's what the pharmaceutical companies and governments claimed the mRNA injections would do.
When people first started refusing them, governments and media claimed they were dooming millions and continuing the epidemic because "the Covid vaccine blocks transmission and confers immunity".
People lost their jobs for refusing while psychopaths like you and Jfree nodded along.
Furthermore, people who said it only acts as a therapeutic (like you just did now) were called conspiracy theorists and deplatformed everywhere.
But I know you know all this, and you still chose to lie and bullshit. Fuck you Sarcasmic.
Oh, and you know what else turned out to work even better to "give your body a head start in fighting off the disease if you do get sick"?
Vitamin D and Tylenol.
Nobody needed a trillion dollar therapeutic.
Just like with his math argument, sarc is make a science argument without science.
Science! Hopefully big pharma now has time to provide a 99% effective vax against bears in trunks.
We need a children's vaccines to keep them safe from waitresses in trunks.
Will a children’s vaccine keep Shrike and Jeffy out of kid’s trunks?
Disney heard chemtard's cries and dumped Prince Charming. No icky heterosexuality will be displayed in the new
Snow WhiteSlush.Actual vaccines confer immunity and aim to block transmission. Period.
No they don’t and they never have had that (blocking transmission) as a primary purpose. The smallpox vaccine – the most successful vaccine in history – did not block transmission even though it led, indirectly, to the extinction of that virus. No vaccine has ever blocked transmission. Where the fuck do you morons get this shit from?
Sometimes they have slowed/reduced transmission but only because they trigger an early response that allows the body to fight and kill/diminish the viral invasion before it can get to the places in the body where it then transmits. But that ain’t ever the case with a respiratory virus. The only possible way the covid vaccine could have reduced transmission is by reducing the contagion window – where it maybe is contagious for three days rather than six. Which may or may not have happened idk.
The main purpose of vaccines is to create a faster immune response. Faster than the virus itself evolves once it infects you. In order to reduce/prevent serious consequences of getting infected.
Oh yeah? That's not what Tucker Carlson said. And we all know he never lies.
If you're not going to read posts before you troll, go be retarded somewhere else. ===>
"No they don’t and they never have had that (blocking transmission) as a primary purpose."
What the every loving fuck, JFree.
I didn't say blocking transmission was the "primary purpose" of vaccines. I very clearly said vaccines had TWO purposes. Conferring immunity being the first, and blocking transmission being the second. And I gave them in that order.
What are you trying to pull?
I also noted that the government, the media and idiots like sarcasmic DID say that the mRNA injections would block transmission and accused people who refused them of prolonging the pandemic, and demanded that they lose their jobs and be forbidden to travel.
Why did you just ignore that?
blocking transmission being the second.
You've said this twice. Now explain EXACTLY how 'blocking transmission' is done PURPOSEFULLY in what you consider a legitimate 'vaccine'. It is only done incidentally as a consequence of creating an immune response to the virus and battling the virus directly for the purpose of killing the virus. Dead viruses don't travel far.
say that the mRNA injections would block transmission
Well IF someone said that, then they are either an idiot. Or more likely you deliberately chose to miscomprehend what they were actually saying. Even more likely - the use of mRNA as an adjectival made you fear some frankenscience and therefore created some bullshit about how RNA could even be associated with a vaccine. Even though it is - mumps, measles, yellow fever, polio, rabies are all RNA viruses with a longstanding vaccine.
What blocks transmission is stuff like quarantine and isolation and such - and yes I'm sure many people advocated lockdowns - and masks - for that reason as well. But that's not vaccines.
the use of mRNA as an adjectival made you fear some frankenscience
The technology had been in development for three or four decades.
That's not really the full truth. The very reason vaccine mandates were pushed is the claim that vaccination would stop people from spreading COVID. And that claim has been disproven and is inconsistent with your claim (if you still get it in a milder form, you're just as likely to spread it as if you hadn't been vaccinated).
Sarcasmic actually made that claim himself last year.
I'd say he's deliberately lying now, but he is retarded and his memory has been destroyed by drink.
Again not true. The vaccine did shorten the duration and severity of the infection, which did reduce the spread.
I posted this below but I'll post it again.
https://maximumtruth.substack.com/
Check out the 'DEEP DIVE: The Covid "Fudge Factor"' or any of the other COVID related articles. He digs deep into the facts and shows his work. It's not political handwaving.
"He digs deep into the facts and shows his work."
He's quoting mainstream news sources reinterpretations (Bloomberg, WaPo) and not the actual study authors interpretations they're based on.
Do you think sarc is smart enough to actually read and understand a scientific study?
My guess is no. Doesn't high alcohol intake usually limit cognitive ability?
Which came first, sarc's limited cognitive ability or high alcohol consumption?
The very reason vaccine mandates were pushed is the claim that vaccination would stop people from spreading COVID.
The ONLY reason I remember vaccine mandates being rationalized – esp in hospital workers – was to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. Which means preventing serious cases. Not preventing transmission itself. With hospitals the issue was that a serious case there changed the systemic burden from one health care worker taking care of patients to that worker having to be taken care of by other workers. Systemically, a double whammy. That is not about transmission. It is about serious cases. Plus – again re hospitals – widespread vaccination (before admission) would prevent serious cases developing from inside-the-hospital transmission. So hospitals wouldn’t themselves become the superspreader site – as was the case with the first SARS.
Beyond that – a lot of this mandate talk was just power bullshit in the usual idiot-filled places like CA, DC, NY. And by 'idiot-filled' I pretty much mean 100% of the population from those places.
"The ONLY reason I remember vaccine mandates being rationalized – esp in hospital workers – was to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed."
Then you're either misremembering or lying because the Biden administration was adamant that getting the vaccine would prevent the spread of covid. Biden's exact words "This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated!"
I just googled that phrase and here is the full quote and context directly from the White House:
While the vaccines provide strong protections for the vaccinated, we read about, we hear about, and we see the stories of hospitalized people, people on their death beds, among the unvaccinated over these past few weeks.
This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated…
And to make matters worse, there are elected officials actively working to undermine the fight against COVID-19. Instead of encouraging people to get vaccinated and mask up, they’re ordering mobile morgues for the unvaccinated dying from COVID in their communities. This is totally unacceptable.
Those mobile morgues were a Tampa/Orlando story. Also included them not sanitizing the drinking water for a couple weeks because they ran out of oxygen.
The unvaccinated overcrowd our hospitals, are overrunning the emergency rooms and intensive care units, leaving no room for someone with a heart attack, or pancreitis [pancreatitis], or cancer.
That case of a guy dying because of pancreatitis who couldn’t get admitted to an ICU because they were all full was a 40yr old veteran in Texas. I remember that.
That is what happens when medical systems break. Deaths from ALL causes rise. The same thing happened in Italy in 2020 – when no patient over the age of 60 was allowed into hospital for any reason. They were just sent home to await whatever their fate. That was their triage system. In Ecuador, bodies were simply put into the street because they couldn’t leave the corpse at home and the funeral homes and cemeteries had shut down. That was their mobile morgue system.
He is describing serious cases and the impact of those on the medical system. Precisely the effect when the virus spreads in unvax communities. The virus still spreads in vax communities – but much much fewer serious cases so who cares.
And yes - this is a month or so before I made my suggestion of prohibiting the unvax from being treated for covid in hospital whenever a hospital had to invoke crisis standards of care - meaning ration care.
Vaccinated, boosted. Got Covid and nothing mild about it. Kept getting worse until the blood oxygen went below 85% and I had to go the hospital.
Of course, you can insist that without the vaccine it would have been even worse. Also, the thousands of vaccinated who died of Covid anyway would have died even more if it hadn't been for the vaccine.
Of course, you can insist that without the vaccine it would have been even worse.
From what I’ve read that is the case, though counterfactuals cannot be proven.
And I'm sorry you went through that. Sounds shitty.
Thanks.
One thing that did unambiguously work was the monoclonal antibody infusion. Got that at the hospital and within two hours felt markedly better with no fever, normalish oxygen, and ability to stand up and walk (slowly) without getting winded. Taste and smell came back the next day, and back at work five days later.
Have seen both versions. Unvaxxed sick for two weeks, vaxxed sick for three weeks, and unvaxxed had zero symptoms testing positive with a vaxxed, hospitalized spouse. For unvaxxed me, it was a mild flu that was flu-ish for three days and tired for another two.
For unvaxxed me, it was 2 weeks of sinus pressure, body aches and coughing. Being unable to get good sleep because of the cough being the worst part of it.
My vaccinated friend, low risk, younger and in much better physical condition than I am, survived 2 weeks in a medically induced coma but eventually passed from pneumonia.
Anecdotal? Yes. But with tens of millions of cases to study, you would think they could come up with some statistically significant data that addressed the radically different outcomes.
And so, we are left relying on "medical experts" to direct behavior instead of relying on an informed public to make decisions in their own best interest.
you would think they could come up with some statistically significant data that addressed the radically different outcomes.
They did. Obviously there are more than 2 possible outcomes – but death and hospitalization are two of the more important.
Hospitalization rates were 12x higher for the unvax than for the vax.
Death rates were 16x higher for the unvax than for the vax.
With further breakdowns by age groups. All waning over time but not precipitately.
Granted 12x (92% effective) and 16x (94% effective) aren’t a million billion gazillion googolplex (aka a bit less than 100% effective) – but it is still statistically very significant. The vax prevented a lot of bad outcomes.
Hospitalization rates were 12x higher for the unvax than for the vax.
Death rates were 16x higher for the unvax than for the vax.
Sure thing, Joe Friday. Now tell us more about all the red state hospitals that were so overwhelmed that people died.
Except that those claims don't even meet a sniff test. Off the top of my head, I would guess that they are including everyone that got COVID prior to March 2021 "unvaxxed" to get those numbers when "unvaxxed" wasn't even a thing until summer of 2021. It certainly doesn't jibe with the data being released during the big surge in December of 2021 when we were already well into Omicron.
It is certainly not suspicious at all that you throw out conflated numbers 18 months later that support your original position now that everybody is no longer familiar with all the various disputed claims.
Medical experts still have a lot to explain about why so many people with COVID have died from complications due to intubation or why so many progressed to pneumonia under the care of physicians. For example: cytokines seem to be involved in the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome, the leading cause of death in people dealing with COVID-19 illness.
There were articles on cytokine storm response as early as March of 2020 along with discussion of genetic factors. But if "public health experts" ever weighed in on it, I missed it. The vaccine doesn't do anything that changes genetic factors, although it could trigger them.
The stark reality is that:
in 2020, pre-vaccine, covid deaths were distributed with only minor differences among political attitudes or future vaccination prevalence.
in 2021 and 2022, post-vaccine, covid deaths tilted strongly to those areas with vaccine resistance and those whose politics supported that vaccine resistance.
After COVID-19 vaccines became widely available, the excess death rate gap between Republicans and Democrats widened from 1.6 percentage points to 10.4 percentage points. The gap in excess death rates between Republicans and Democrats is concentrated in counties with low vaccination rates and only materializes after vaccines became widely available
It's a shame that the vaccine became so politicized. But on the bright side - at least the idiots mostly killed those on their own side. Friendly fire politics so to speak.
It’s a shame that the vaccine became so politicized. But on the bright side – at least the idiots mostly killed those on their own side. Friendly fire politics so to speak.
Do they still give Darwin Awards?
I’m sure there’s a conspiracy there somewhere. Probably murdering those speaking out against election fraud.
Republican voters also skew older, from a demographic standpoint.
Red states and red counties were far more likely to remove covid restrictions, too, much earlier than blue enclaves or blue states. So if you think that any of those had any effect . . .
From the study cited above:
The authors estimated excess death rates as the percentage increase in deaths above expected deaths due to seasonality, geographic location, party affiliation, and age.
Red states and red counties were far more likely to remove covid restrictions, too, much earlier than blue enclaves or blue states.
Maybe. But the study looked specifically at two states - OH and FL - which were both large enough and purple enough to contain large populations of distributed partisans - but restricted enough to not need to go down the rabbit hole of all the possible differences between D's and R's. Those are excess death differences WITHIN those two states not between them and others.
Florida that had a lower death rate than most heavy blue states? Lol.
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
To calculate excess deaths, we use 577,659 deaths of individuals linked to their 2017 voting records in Ohio and Florida who died at age 25 or older between January 2018 and December 2021.
That is not even remotely scientific. Plus it isn't a peer-reviewed study, it is a working paper. Probably because it would occur to anybody with a brain that the data used is garbage because most people that died were old and old people in both Ohio and Florida skew Republican. What was the rate in NY and NJ? Why didn't the assholes at Yale use their own state?
At least Sarc chimed in without looking at it to demonstrate what a fucking shill he is.
That is an excellently structured statistical study. They are not comparing OH/FL to NY/TX/CA. They are primarily comparing D's in OH/FL to R's in OH/FL. While I'm sure admitting that the virus itself doesn't give a fuck about politics or choose its victims.
They didn't include all states probably because 600,000 deaths is a fuckload of data points where multiple databases need to be aligned and probably semi-manually. And produce far more statistical significance than is needed to make a very legitimate conclusion.
And there is zero reason whatsoever to even address your ilk. Mises crowd doesn't do anything or accept anything empirical. Ever. And conspiracy nutjobs are always on their own planet.
That is an excellently structured statistical study.
Obfuscate all you want. COVID killed old people. "Old people skew conservative" is not a newsflash, asshole.
And there is zero reason whatsoever to even address your ilk.
People who don't accept every narrative that confirms their bias?
You transparently don't have a clue how to read for comprehension. How are you even employable?
The analysis was not based on actual vaccination status or whether a person actually died from COVID. It was based on county vaccination records, state voter registrations, national death records, and a speculated number of "excess deaths due to COVID". To call the methodology dubious would be an understatement. Which is why I am going with, "complete and utter bullshit."
One of us failed to read for comprehension, but it was not me.
Are you actually using the study where the authors themselves in their abstract say not to use this to prove political affiliation as they didn't have the information?
Just wow.
Yes that study where they state the exact opposite of what you say they say.
This study constructs an individual-level dataset with political affiliation and excess death rates during the COVID-19 pandemic via a linkage of 2017 voter registration in Ohio and Florida to mortality data from 2018 to 2021
But it’s no surprise that you lie. As usual.
I mean the abstract you ignored is right up there above for you to read chicken little. Lol. Pretty sure I've even called you out on it a dozen times.
Good for you.
Try not to dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
Thank you for stating this. I did pass.
P.S , it's passed, not past.
There’s no evidence to show the “Vaccines” being a net positive at all.
In fact, evidence tends to suggest the opposite. More so as time goes on.
That's actually false. Nothing more than tribal posturing. Try looking at some facts.
https://maximumtruth.substack.com/
Your link is quite pro-vaccine and pro-Paxlovid, and therefore he seems rather pro-"Big Pharma". It's also one guy who seems to be a neocon-type (take a look at his Russia-Ukraine articles).
I make my decisions based upon facts, not the people presenting them. You should try it sometime.
No you don’t. That’s why you continue to call people who were right conspiracy theorists. You constantly dismiss the people giving you facts which is why you are wrong so often.
Also you continue to be wrong about the vaccines. Latest studies show no delta in serious outcomes of covid between vaccinated and unvaccinated.
You make your decisions om institutional narratives no matter how wrong they are.
Oh, so you claim to mute people and then read what they say anyway.
I was commenting on the nature of the articles that have a distinct pro-pharma and neocon bent. Given that this is only one person (not a team) writing them, one cannot separate the person from the articles.
Oh, so you claim to mute people and then read what they say anyway.
You occasionally add something to the conversation, unlike your buddies. Unfortunately this is not one of those occasions.
And so you're the one to decide who adds to the conversation or not, Sarc? Who died and made you King of the Comments?
Also, you have quite a few times when you add nothing, kettle.
While you and your troll buddies think "Go down another 40 and pass out." is a profound statement adding depth to the conversation, I'm not that stupid and immature.
What depth have you added this morning?
Profound? No.
Funny? Absolutely!
Paxlovid isn't even one of the vaccines lol. Sarc is a fucking idiot.
Every time I think the little retard couldn't get any dumber he exceeds expectations.
His facts on pax were lax.
Weird.
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/why-do-vaccinated-people-represent-most-covid-19-deaths-right-now/
Oh. Your link isn't actually truth but narrative.
Well, Sarc is pushing a narrative.
No, dipshit. I’m looking at facts. As opposed to judging what is said based upon the politics of the presenter, and treating opinion as fact. You’re becoming more and more like your imbecile troll buddies who ignore facts and only look at people. I'm disappointed to be honest.
You didnt push facts, you linked to a narrative while you ignore the latest numbers.
My post was literally a link to numbers.
Some more inconvenient facts for you.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-19-vaccine-booster-shot-infection-rate/
Almost like natural immunity is better long term than the shitty vaccines.
The shift of “with or of?” in our pre-vaccine, and then post-vaccine, world has been interesting to see.
Was that supposed to link to an article? Most of the headlines seem like opinion pieces, though to be fair, that’s pretty much all journalism today.
Try more than the headlines. He provides citations, and describes his logic and methods. Unlike liars pushing political opinions who ignore anything that doesn't further the agenda, he looks at facts and comes to conclusion.
Shorter sarc – he agrees with my narratives so I blindly trust him.
Sarc did you look at any other sources or at his own actual studies? Did you click through his citations? My guess based on your responses so far is no.
Great Barrington scientists, Berenson, and many others have posted studies and analysis too. All in opposition. But you have zero intellectual curiosity to read the other side.
What do I win?
A trip to the camps when they do this again in the name of the climate?
Why the fuck is my daily climate ration calculated based on the number of covid boosters I’ve had? (Probably how it will work)
Your ration of crickets is being reduced until you cease with the wrongspeak.
Wrongask is evidence of wrongthink.
Free vacation! Nice, hopefully somewhere warm...
This is of course painting the situation with a very broad brush.
Of course the vaccine was oversold and overhyped. Any vaccine for any coronavirus is going to be not all that effective because coronaviruses by their nature mutate so rapidly. It is the same with the flu vaccine.
Bragging about not getting vaccinated because of the campaign surrounding it, however, is dumb. It shows that you believe more in tribal narratives over actual evidence.
The vaccine made the symptoms of COVID not as strong for *most people*. Again that is a statistical result, and is not going to be true for every single person.
All of the available evidence showed that, with the exception of a few demographics, such as teenage boys, the risk associated with COVID was higher than the risk associated with the vaccine.
So if you didn't get vaccinated, and you caught COVID and didn't suffer terrible effects, then congratulations, you beat the odds. That makes you lucky, not smart.
But because we live in a postmodernist hell, no scientific study, no matter how meticulously performed, will prove anything to the tribalists. Because every scientific study has uncertainty and doubt, and so for the scientific study that has a conclusion that runs contrary to the dominant tribal narratives, the study's faults overwhelm any benefit that the study might confer; and for the scientific study that has a conclusion that is congruent with the dominant tribal narratives, the study's conclusions outweigh the very very minor faults of the study.
So it is pointless to post links to studies here. Because that is how the tribalists will approach them.
What are the odds of being unvaxxed, contracting covid, and suffering terrible effects to which you refer?
About the same as driving around with a bear in the trunk.
I usually allow the bear to sit in the passenger’s seat. Usually.
Lol. Look at the radical individualist talking down to people for making their own choices instead of following the herd.
Too funny.
I definitely was disappointed by some of the shit I got from people around me that went along as sheep. Lucky for me they already knew I was a libertarian, and in previous discussions on other topics they weren’t able to persuade me of their statist views, so I got a lot of single comments, but then they’d realize they weren’t going to convince me and just moved on about it.
Enh. I got vaxxed so I could fly to Germany and see my girlfriend for the first time in 18 months. I hope it doesn't end up killing me.
So political dynasties are fine and dandy with the Right People, the Smart People.
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h.I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
Here’s what I do……………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
"The Kennedys are the opposite of this — they are a cadre of reckless, womanizing, substance-abusing mediocrities of middling IQ, who have produced a staggering array of displays of bad judgment and poor character over the decades."
Yeah but I learned in school that JFK was awesome because he died young and was moderately attractive by politician standards.
Michelle Obama is twice the man Jfk ever was
Are you saying Kennedy suffered from the Irish Curse?
Could be a temperature-induced shrinkage. The waters off Chappaquiddick are usually cold. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne.
If only we could...
https://twitter.com/ricwe123/status/1680899821677297664?t=Hcdc-PtMgOstAgQUizsrlw&s=19
The attack on the Crimean bridge involved a British marine underwater autonomous robot equipped with explosives.
The REMUS 600 can navigate at depths of up to 600 meters and is controlled via a laptop.
The launch occurred from a civilian vessel in the Black Sea, with a flight duration of approximately 70 hours and a speed of up to 5 knots.
It looks to have also sunk the grain deal extension.
That's definitely one immediate consequence.
Ukraine wants Russia to fire on "civilian" ships.
Reports are that the Kiev attack on the bridge killed two civilians and injured one minor.
So it's not really a story about a good guy with a marine underwater autonomous robot equipped with explosives?
The abridged version should omit the perpetrators being good.
Left a 14 year old girl orphaned.
https://twitter.com/Ramy_Sawma/status/1680927932951281667?t=tqFn_boHy_P-YNxsp68TOQ&s=19
"Ukraine claims responsibility for new attack on key Crimea bridge" - CNN
Which by itself, doesn't surprise anyone actually. But what one does feel intrigued about, is what do they actually achieve by doing so?!
Let's state the known facts till now:
- First Images showed a partial collapse of a section of the roadway portion of the bridge, which is rarely used by the military. So that part of the bridge will only be out of order temporarily.
- The railroad side of the bridge was not affected & train traffic resumed shortly. So the main Russian Forces supply line (as the AFU claims) was not even affected.
- Two people were killed, and their young daughter seriously wounded, as a result of the attack. So no military casualties inflicted on the Russian Forces, only civilians.
- Many reports are circulating, as well as Flight tracking maps, showing an unusual high Western Aircrafts activity around Crimea, before & at the time of the attack. So this attack should be proven to have been carried out, with Western/NATO support (And maybe planned).
- Many sources, notably mostly Ukrainian ones, are claiming that the attack was carried out using the British REMUS 600 autonomous underwater robot with an additional load of explosives. So Russia can also consider this as an attack on its' territory, carried out with a NATO weapon.
- Many Ukrainian (and western) officials, journalists & media figures, posted clear praises of what can only be considered as another clear Terrorist Attack, that targeted a civilian structure, & caused civilian casualties. So any retaliatory action from Russia, on any target they consider civilian is considered "Fair game" now.
- The attack on the Kerch bridge was definitely launched from the Black Sea, within which, an already shaky Grain Deal was being fulfilled. So now Russia has been given the best excuse to end the deal, which will definitely affect Europe & Ukraine the most.
- Many more voices are now sounding in Russia, calling for a harsher answer, going as far as calling for "Cutting Ukraine from the Sea" once and for all (Capturing Nikolaev & Odessa).
Bottom line, that besides the huge media op and praise of success that we all have seen afterwards, and besides it covering up for the major failures that are going on, in the AFU "Counter-Offensive" on all sectors, I really do not see anything that the Ukrainian could have achieved out of this attack.
Is another "The bridge is on fire" stamp worth it that much? They'll see what they brought on themselves I guess...
[Link]
The stretch goal was always a land bridge to Transnistria.
Wagner units observed back in eastern Russia near the line though some also reported to be in Belarus.
Sounds like the perfect tool to blow up an underwater pipeline.
Just to recap in case anyone has missed this
1. Ukraine has banned media that opposes the gov
2. Has suspended elections
3. Has banned religions
4. Attacked germany
5. Attacked poland
I wonder if anyone that supports these horrible people will ever have a falling down revelation of
"wait, I'm the bad guy?"
6. Attempted a PR campaign to carry out a false flag destruction of a nuclear power plant.
7. Assassinated the daughter of a Russian political figure.
8. Assassinated a blogger.
9. Engaged in a seven plus year campaign of genocide against Donbas.
Folks be biden their time until the brandon of the supporters is clearly “the bad guys.”
“9. Engaged in a seven plus year campaign of genocide against Donbas.”
The NYT is a Putin puppet:
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1680672095444029440
i completely understand being resistant to getting involved in the conflict. just say it isn't our business and move on......
but the dip shits who constantly want to try and demonize and spread propaganda against the country that was the victim of an invasion...... by a country with a horrible record on civil rights...... I'm trying to imagine a rational that isn't some combination of mental illness and/or paid troll status.
Ukraine conducted genocide on the citizens of Donbas for seven plus years. Ukraine unilaterally violated the Minsk Agreements that were supposed to give those people more autonomy. The same agreements that Merkel has talked about only being there to help the Bandera regime in Kiev stockpile. NATO gave its commitment to Russia during the dissolution of the CCCP that they would not expand east of the DDR. Something not dissimilar happened in the early 1960s in Cuba where an agreement wasn’t in place.
As a libertarian, my view is the US govt should sit it out completely with the possible exception of offering to be a non-binding mediator. The country is $32.5T in debt and steamrolling in the wrong direction in (small) part due to crap like this, actions taken by Biden have weakened the US (reserve currency and petrodollar status both being actively eroded), warbonering in the backyard of the planet’s largest nuclear power puts citizens in the US at risk, and there will be blowback by the banderas years after this had been resolved (q.v., Afghanistan).
If you want to volunteer for Zely’s foreign legion, you should have the freedom to do so.
"Ukraine conducted genocide on the citizens of Donbas for seven plus years."
see, this is what i am talking about. this isn't a fact, it is repeating RUSSIAN propaganda. you go on to say some very good points about the unsustainable debt and the dangers of saber rattling with a major nuclear power. some very good arguments to stay out of it. (which, as i said, i understand.)
but that is what you chose to lead with.... the flagrant propaganda of the true aggressor in the situation. why? why is this something not just worth saying, but worth leading with? it undermines every thing else you say. those who want to ignore the legitimate reasons to stay out of it can just look at that one statement and write you off as a propaganda troll.
Wikipedia, Black Rifle Coffee, Biden, Graham, and CNN may not call it a fact.
Four years ago, an acquaintance from the area suggested I look into this and I did. The Bandera govt of Kiev versus the citizens of Donbas. Maybe bold the caps next time like the pedophile, schizophrenic squirrel, or the now deceased Mike Hihn use when pushing their narratives.
Before the Crimean bridge was struck, Ukrainian commander Syrsk called his shot. Two civilians were killed. A little gurl injured.
Over the weekend, under the backdrop of the failed counteroffensive, Zaluzhny (commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Ukraine) doubled-down on having a free hand to continue to target civilian areas with shelling.
"Wikipedia, Black Rifle Coffee, Biden, Graham, and CNN may not call it a fact. "
that is the most pathetic argument i have seen in a long time..... which is saying something on here...... "sure, anything that even resembles an accredited source won't call it a fact."
"Before the Crimean bridge was struck, Ukrainian commander Syrsk called his shot. Two civilians were killed. A little gurl injured."
sorry..... i now see that looking like an insane Russian propaganda troll is what you were going for. you want to feign outrage over two civilian deaths taking out a bridge (which has been a legitimate military target as long as there have been bridges) while ignoring the thousands of civilians killed by Russia in this invasion. what a fucking joke you are.
^ Lindsey Graham’s mouthpiece has spoken. Seems that the narrative is easy for you to swallow.
fucking joke.
Just because Putin used facts to justify his actions doesn’t make them false.
You’re allowed to educate yourself about events from more than two years ago:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/10/20/ukraine-widespread-use-cluster-munitions
When you finally wash the shit off your hands that you have been slinging, you may want to clean the Graham lip service off your face.
Ancient Chinese proverb says: the neocon that polishes many warboners sleeps that night with a warm belly.
the claim was genocide. the one who made that claim acknowledged that no credible source would confirm that claim.
what you offered was evidence Ukraine was not abiding by a treaty they never signed...... no evidence they were targeting civilians. no evidence they were engaged in anything even remotely similar to genocide. just that they were using bombs that some people don't like.
but then, trolls and those who defend them can't be expected to be honest or rational.
Stating facts is not propaganda, what was listed that is incorrect?
do you guys not know what propaganda is? it CAN be outright lies, like number 9..... but it can also be a deliberate distortion of facts to push a false narrative..... like calling an air defense missile that lands on the wrong side of the border, as Ukraine was defending against an active missile barrage from Russia, an "attack on Poland."
pretty much everything this clown says is text book propaganda.
Sorry. You don't get to be an established religion tentacle of an aggressor State, recruit and propagandize for the aggressor State, and operate Inside the nation being attacked, all in the name of "sincerely-held religious belief." Mosques aren't exempt from investigation post-9/11, nor should they be.
I missed where Islam was banned in the US.
Is this a new attack on the Crimean Bridge, or the old one?
A new terror attack.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
GFY
""I believe in a limited role of government," Hutchinson said. "I don't think that California ought to be able to tell parents, 'You need to have gender-affirming care for children.' The government should not do that. And in the same way, let's keep the government out of it unless it's [an] extreme case, and let's let parents guide the children.""
I would think that mutilating a child's body would be an "extreme case". Governments have laws against parent's shooting their children up with heroin or other drugs because it is harmful to a child no matter what the parent thinks. We have laws against children driving even if the parents think they are competent to drive. We have laws against ten year old children getting married, entering into a contract, or even getting tattooed because we do not think they are old enough to make an informed decision even if their parents think are competent to do so.
But Hutchinson thinks it is quite okay for a child to permanently harm their body if the parents are okay with it? And as in California, many think the children should be fine with making that decision even if the parents are against it.
That makes no sense at all. The world has gone mad!
I dont get the left libertarian position that rationalizes the right to harm a third party, which is what GAC is. Just like a parent can't convince a child to have sex or sign a contract of indenture with their child. We know the lifetime costs of care because doctors brag about it. We know the procedures harm patients as we have medical studies showing it. Yet a segment of people call this freedom for minors who do not have informed consent.
Asa also shows standard GOPe and how they allow the one way ratchet of the left to win. He cares more about leftist media and people like ENB saying nice things about him than understanding the reality of the situation. The entire the left does bad things but with good intentions show Mike jeff and sarc push.
I dont get the left libertarian position...
Yes you do. It's been explained to you dozens of times.
GAC as a valid medical procedure to treat a diagnosed disease state according to a strict standard of care when all parties (including parents) fully consent is a borderline case that should not be banned by the state but should be left up to parents and doctors to decide on what to do.
GAC in other situations, IMO, crosses that line, and should not be permitted because in these cases it is much closer to child abuse.
That is because "left-libertarians" (otherwise known as "libertarians") put liberty as the highest value. We may not like how people exercise their liberty from time to time, but it is their choice to do so, and the guiding rule for deciding when a particular act crosses the line is the NAP. On the other hand, "right-libertarians" (otherwise known as "social conservatives") put social order and morality as values higher than liberty.
In going through Haidt's work on the moral dimensions of the political mind, it was noteworthy that there are two areas where conservatives differ from libertarians: the moral concept of disgust, and the moral concept of sanctity. According to Haidt, conservatives value these concepts much higher than libertarians do. So, when a procedure like GAC evokes feelings of disgust, and evokes a sense that it is violating a sacred duty of parents to protect kids, conservatives understandably immediately rush to ban those procedures, and devalue concerns about liberty. Libertarians might also have feelings of disgust and feelings that GAC violates some sacred duty, but those are not prioritized as highly as the moral concept of liberty. That is according to Haidt.
And we see in all these discussions, the "left-libertarians" have tracked with Haidt's predictions of what libertarians believe, and the "right-libertarians" have tracked with Haidt's predictions of what conservatives believe.
You know all this Jesse, it's been explained to you dozens of times.
You know all this Jesse, it’s been explained to you dozens of times.
He wouldn't be JesseAz if he didn't lie and deliberately misstate what others say so he can call them liars when they are foolish enough to defend themselves from his lies.
What did I lie about or mistate Sarc?
I know you don't have me on mute. Answer the question.
Jeff is lying here as he didnt explain anything, he ignores the counter evidence. He has been given dozens of studies disputing his narratives and has never once been able to dispute the studies he has been given showing GAC has long term harm and no benefit for mental issues.
But you dont care about facts despite your protestations above. You literally want head pats from leftists like Jeff because he doesn't call out your bullshit.
So Jesse, you obviously don't have me on mute either. Why don't you answer me directly?
It is still very much an open scientific question on whether GAC has long-term mental health benefits. It has not been conclusively been demonstrated either way.
You posted a critique from Jesse Singal's substack on a recent paper. I posted my rebuttal to that critique. You posted crickets in response.
You cite critiques from right-wing sources which reinforce your biases. I cite original research where people can make up their own minds.
But when it comes to matters of liberty, the effectiveness of these treatments are secondary concerns. For example we support the liberty to do drugs even though there are very real harms associated with drug addiction. That is because liberty represents the right to commit a certain act without needing permission from the state. We shouldn't need to demonstrate to the state that our actions will be beneficial in some way for a proper exercise of our liberty.
So I am totally in favor of further research on the effectiveness of GAC or any other medical procedure for that matter. Go right ahead. But that is not sufficient reason to outright ban it entirely.
I wish he'd mute me, so I wouldn't see his turds stuck to all my posts.
sarcasmic 4 weeks ago
Flag Comment Mute User
And stop calling you out on your retardation? Not a chance.
Ditto.
Ditto to Mike from sarcs citation above also.
I don’t believe any of them have ever criticized Pluggo for posting links to cp but Jesse, holy fuck, your comments are goddam horrific!
there are two areas where conservatives differ from libertarians: the moral concept of disgust, and the moral concept of sanctity. According to Haidt, conservatives value these concepts much higher than libertarians do. So, when a procedure like GAC evokes feelings of disgust, and evokes a sense that it is violating a sacred duty of parents to protect kids, conservatives understandably immediately rush to ban those procedures, and devalue concerns about liberty. Libertarians might also have feelings of disgust and feelings that GAC violates some sacred duty, but those are not prioritized as highly as the moral concept of liberty.
So this is why you keep judging me to be a conservative instead of a libertarian? An act of mental prestidigitation that could be used to justify pedophilia and incest by valuing liberty over moral disgust, and be used to justify the chemical and surgical inventions in GAC by valuing liberty over the sanctity of the bodily integrity of a mentally ill minor?
The best part is the self-evidence that you don't have an original thought in your tiny fucking brain.
It's one reason. Again according to Haidt, everyone has these moral foundations. Everyone has a moral foundation of disgust, sanctity, and liberty. Where we all differ is how we prioritize them. Conservatives prioritize disgust and sanctity over liberty. Libertarians, the opposite.
According to Haidt, for liberals, they also prioritize disgust and sanctity rather low, but they do not prioritize liberty in their place; instead, they prioritize the moral foundation of caring. So they would tend to be in favor of GAC, not out of any concern for the liberty of the parents or the children, but because they care about the well-being of the people involved, and their caring is valued more than their disgust or their sanctity.
Libertarians have to be willing to say "those people are doing something disgusting, and/or something that violates some sacred taboo, but as long as nobody's rights are being violated, then they should have the liberty to do so."
Libertarians have to be willing to say “those people are doing something disgusting, and/or something that violates some sacred taboo, but as long as nobody’s rights are being violated, then they should have the liberty to do so.”
You are conflating the right to free speech (guaranteed by the US Constitution) with the right to masturbate in public (which is prohibited at some level of government in most places). It is dishonest, and in my experience, it is often situational.
I don't think it makes me less libertarian to argue that it is politic to set minimum acceptable standards to interactions between humans, like covering ones sexual organs in public. Use your freedom of speech. Convince people the behavior is acceptable, don't demand that they accept it. That is libertarian.
To be able to get away with that second scenario, one must have a lot of stroke.
GAC as a valid medical procedure to treat a diagnosed disease state according to a strict standard of care
All of that is false. "GAC" is not a treatment or cure for any disease or disorder. That the "standard of care" is a sick joke has been pointed out here many times.
i think part of the disconnect is a misunderstanding of what is actually being talked about, specifically by those who oppose it. GAC is a broad term that encompasses more than just a sex change operation. even in a place like California, sex change operations don't happen until after age 18. so all the "mutilation" and "permanent harm" arguments against GAC are actually irrelevant to the subject. when talking about minors, the most you are generally talking about is puberty blockers that start around age 15 or 16. (which you can feel is wrong, but hardly amounts to the great and terrible harm opponents pretend it is.)
sex change operations don’t happen until after age 18.
That has been refuted here many times by several of us.
i understand that several of you do repeatedly say things that are false. repeating a lie does not make it true.
And calling a link to verified facts a "lie" does not make it false.
link?
https://reason.com/2023/07/17/federal-officials-can-keep-pressing-tech-platforms-to-remove-content-for-now-court-says/?comments=true#comment-10158314
wow.... that is a whole new level of stupid.... linking to the comment thread you are in, where there is no link.....
Now you see, Grasshopper.
that you are just a troll?
the most you are generally talking about is puberty blockers that start around age 15 or 16
Nobody is talking about puberty blockers 4-6 years after puberty starts. The damage is already done. They aim to start kids on puberty blockers by age 10. By 15 or 16 kids need to be on full series of opposite sex hormones to have much hope of not looking like a transvestite.
I actually can't imagine someone being this ignorant of basic biology.
I can. Especially amongst the fifty cent morons.
Those that start late will appear transienner.
Well according to the article he would sign a bill prohibiting genital surgery and mastectomies for gender transition on minors. It's not clear from the article exactly what his objection to the legislation was. Or maybe it's too nuanced for me to understand.
GAC care includes more than just genital surgery and mastectomies.... genital surgery is not performed on minors anywhere. mastectomies are rare, especially with the use of hormones and puberty blockers that start around age 15 or 16.
the hormones and puberty blockers are what we are talking about.
Again, puberty blockers were originally synthesized to arrest early-onset puberty which means between the ages of 6 and 8 years. They would be pointless after 13 for most kids.
It is a well documented problem that the use of blockers and hormones during the normal growth phase will leave the primary sexual organs significantly underdeveloped. Some transfemale patients have too little penis development to have enough tissue to leave them capable of stimulating an orgasm after surgery. Not much point in changing your mind at that point either, no matter what you may have heard about penile enlargement in your email.
But, by all means, please continue to misrepresent the reality.
you are a jack ass who has no idea what you are talking about.
I don't think "thinks it is quite OK" really accurately describes his position.
No no Zeb. If you aren't in favor of a state ban then you are in favor of dragging teenagers out of their houses and cutting off their genitals in the street.
What I believe in is that parents ought to raise their children...
...and use them for weird clout.
The average American male weighs 197.9 pounds...
SO THEY NEED ALL THE DIET SODA THEY CAN GET.
Can’t recall seeing fit people either purchase or drink diet sodas. I don’t doubt it happens but usually see blubbery folks consuming them. Perhaps it makes them feel good about the daily sugary chocolate drinks they get at Chunkin Donuts.
Diet pop was sold as a way to drink all you wanted without gaining weight. I'm not so sure that was necessarily a great idea. It amazes me how many more chemicals and additives are in diet pop over regular pop, and especially that made with sugar and not HFCS (which is also another artificial sweetener). Maybe we should moderate our intake and keep it simple with the real stuff?
If I wasn’t forced by govt to subsidize the healthcare costs of the obese, I wouldn’t care as much about what they consumed. For some of the fatties, I’m also subsidizing their groceries. I agree that there could be some skepticism regarding adding chemicals to solve a problem that wasn’t a problem when self-restraint and moderation were practiced.
Fit people drink water, fat people drink diet sodas, obese people drink regular soda.
Where does “gravy suppositories” fall on that scale?
I like to pour the powder mix in my mouth, gulp a bit of water and shake my head around until gravy is achieved.
Everyone I know that drinks Diet pop is obese. And most of them drink a lot of it.
They nom nom nom nominate it as their favorite beverage.
Net Zero and its human toll.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/16/the-human-cost-of-net-zero/
The tale of Thoronka’s device captures well the wishful thinking that dominates the worldview of Western green elites. They are determined to believe that there are quick and easy routes to decarbonising the economy. That it’s possible to meet people’s energy needs today without using fossil fuels or nuclear power. That the transition to clean, green energy is just around the corner, and the only thing standing in its way are the evil fossil-fuel companies.
The truth is that our societies are still massively dependent on fossil fuels. For all the talk of the advances made in renewable energy, the proportion of our electricity production reliant on fossil fuels has barely changed over the past 40 years. In that time, only nuclear power has declined as a source of electricity.
None of this is to say that an energy transition is impossible. A target of Net Zero by 2050 could well be met. But the rapid abandonment of fossil fuels that this demands would inflict misery and hardship on billions of people.
Western governments’ green hypocrisy is revealing. They posture endlessly about Net Zero and indulge in fantasies about the energy transition. Yet they can’t escape the fact that fossil fuels are integral to their societies’ wellbeing.
In fact, every step of the proposed energy transition is itself dependent on fossil fuels. You cannot build a wind turbine without lubricants from oil, a concrete foundation and copious amounts of steel. Just as you cannot make solar panels without polysilicon, a component that is immensely energy intensive to produce because it requires temperatures beyond 1,150 degrees Celsius.
The talk of leaving fossil fuels behind is not based in reality. It’s fuelled instead by a mixture of apocalypticism, hypocrisy and sheer wishful thinking. In the future, perhaps we will be able to power hospitals using kinetic energy. But right now, the costs of abandoning fossil fuels will likely do far more harm than climate change itself.
FYTW
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h.I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
Here’s what I do……………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
Tracking pandemic spending.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_cbebab60-2270-11ee-822f-532bb9097aad.html
A new report found that the $5 trillion Congress spent on pandemic relief efforts has been so difficult to track that it has even stumped some government investigators.
A new report from the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee tracked $2.65 billion of pandemic relief funding to six communities. The report found that "data gaps make it difficult for taxpayers to know how much money their community received and for what purposes." The $2.65 billion is part of $5 trillion in federal relief given out during the pandemic.
"Data was sometimes difficult to find or unavailable. We had to use data sources that the public can’t access," according to a summary. "One of our partners had to access five internal databases to determine the recipients in a single program. There were some programs where we don't know how much money was either obligated or spent."
Money laundering all the way down.
All of that is true about the kennedies, and yet he is still the most sane main stream democrat
Chris Christie says Trump deserved to be indicted and is misleading his supporters: 'He's a liar and a coward'
.
https://www.businessinsider.com/christie-calls-trump-liar-and-coward-who-deserved-indictment-2023-7
This could be epic, Peanuts.
FAT on FAT crime. Call the referee in.
You're seriously using Mr. Bridgegate himself to bolster your TDS?
Shrike and sarc love establishment neocons.
I just like a good FAT on FAT fight.
Christie has that small donor mojo going for him.
Chris Christie and Tim Scott announce they’ve reached donor threshold to make GOP debate stage
Veronica Stracqualursi
By Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN
Updated 10:02 PM EDT, Wed July 12, 2023
HELL YEAH!
Will Donnie have the nads to debate Chrissy?
No. You love establishment neocons and dems.
And little kids.
Fair.
And Soros talking points.
He really loves those Soros talking points.
Then you should love Christie/Pritzker 2024: The Battle Over The Buffet Table.
Supported by a SuperSize PAC
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a TDS-addled kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Spending into insolvency: federal edition.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_b7bc231e-21ac-11ee-a9e1-c36e41216bd6.html
Budget groups continue to release dire forecasts for the explosive growth of the U.S. national debt.
The U.S. Treasury reported a $1.4 trillion deficit so far nine months into fiscal year 2023.
“Three-quarters into the fiscal year and we’re borrowing an astounding $5.1 billion per day,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “If that isn’t a sign that we need a wake-up call, maybe it should be the fact that the deficit for this fiscal year is now larger than all of last year's deficit – and there’s still three months to go.
“In CBO’s projections, the deficit equals 5.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023, declines to 5.0 percent by 2027, and then grows in every year, reaching 10.0 percent of GDP in 2053,” the report said. “Over the past century, that level has been exceeded only during World War II and the coronavirus pandemic.”
The CRFB said in a report released last week that “by 2051, spending on interest will be the single largest line item in the federal budget, surpassing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other mandatory and discretionary spending programs.”
“The federal government borrowed $2 trillion over the past 12 months. That’s $63,000 per second,” said Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz. “It’s delusional to think our debt doesn’t matter when America’s working class suffers the consequences.”
Bailing the sinking ship: deep blue city in deep blue state edition.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/ttx-joins-major-companies-leaving-chicago/
Freight railroad car company TTX is moving its headquarters from Chicago’s West Loop to North Carolina. It adds to the growing list of corporate departures after Caterpillar, Citadel, Boeing, Tyson Foods and Guggenheim Partners.
The announcement came jointly from TTX and North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, revealing the company will establish its new main office in Charlotte next year. The move creates 150 jobs and represents a $14.5 million investment by TTX.
The list of departures could grow if Chicago Mercantile Exchange also leaves. CME CEO Terry Duffy said a clause in its lease states if taxes get worse, it could break its lease and leave its namesake city.
McDonald’s Corp. CEO Chris Kempczinski said last year staying in Chicago is far from a sure thing.
Elections have consequences.
Chicago voters are destroying the city and the state. Blue city California voters are doing the same but at least most of the state has great weather. Illinois doesn't.
The capital of the winning side of the culture war.
https://twitter.com/BelannF/status/1680679398872055812?t=V_mreSR2pNNmFvGWTD7cYg&s=19
JAN 6 PRISONER - EDWARD JACOB LANG -TAKES OBSTRUCTON CHARGE TO THE SUPREME COURT
Mr. Lang says the Biden administration is intentionally twisting the law into a weapon against those who support former President Donald Trump. The SCOTUS filing, he says, is “bigger than J6, and exposes the root of political persecution, using a weaponized DOJ and FBI against conservatives.”
“The 1512 charge the DOJ is using against me and hundreds of other Americans is a perfect example of the Biden regime abusing the law code, and using it as an instrument of political oppression against MAGA dissidents,” Mr. Lang said, in a statement issued exclusively to The Epoch Times. “When the current party in power perverts the law to coerce, threaten, silence, stifle and imprison the supporters of the former political party, in order to scare the public at large from any protesting or political dissent, this is the true mark of the collapse of free speech and our Democratic Republic.”
Mr. Lang, who has been detained for over 900 days without a trial, is currently incarcerated at the Alexandria Detention Center, located in Alexandria, Virginia.
'The federal government has effectively declared a jihad, or a holy war, on everyone within sight of Jan. 6,' attorney says.
Libertarians have said this since January 7th. Why reason has zero articles on it.
900 days is an obvious violation of constitutional rights but the DC judges rubber stamp everything the regime demands. SCOTUS needs to address these issues and I hope maybe this case will be a starting point.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jan-6-sentence-florida-music-teacher/
54 year-old lady music teacher gets 6 years with a terrorism enhancement for maybe pushing a cop and calling Nancy Pelosi a bitch. While a thug in Portland got 2 years for kicking a defenseless man in the head.
Bizarro world, indeed.
The teacher had to face the music. Perhaps she’s singing a different tune now.
Well, that was pretty sharp.
It fell flat.
"‘The federal government has effectively declared a jihad, or a holy war, on everyone within sight of Jan. 6,’ attorney says."
Except one guy in particular, for reasons we aren't allowed to know.
...more people are searching for Virtual Private Networks (VPN) in Virginia than in any other state in the country, according to Google Trends.
Time for a new Virginia law.
A Virginia Porn Nanny ban?
VPN age verification.
Virginia is for lovers, not yankers, and they intend to keep it that way!
"I Am The Regulator!"
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/i-am-regulator-eu-commissioner-warns-social-media-censor-after-french-riots
“L’Etat, c’est moi” – “I am the state” – Louis XIV is supposed to have said.
And in a contemporary echo of that famous phrase, EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton repeatedly stressed on Monday that “I am the regulator” when lambasting social media networks for “not having done enough” during the recent French riots and threatening them with sanctions, including even banishment, if they should remain similarly inactive after August 25.
Well, namely censorship: suppression of content that the European Commission deems to have been in some way or another harmful in the circumstances. Hence, the importance of the August 25 date. For August 25 will mark exactly four months since the European Commission officially designated 17 “Very Large Online Platforms” and two “Very Large Online Search Engines,” and from that date forward, per the below timeline, the designated entities will have to be in compliance with the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which is designed precisely to “regulate” online speech.
Be that as it may, Breton noted that he had recently been to California to run “stress tests” with the American social media companies to ensure their preparedness for the DSA deadline, and he noted that he will go to China next week to discuss the same matter with TikTok. Consider the irony of this: an EU official traveling to China to ensure that a Chinese company is prepared to comply with a European censorship law!
It isnt fascism if private companies due it at behest of government. - Mike and Jeff.
Ironically, that is the very definition of fascism, thus both Jeffy (aka cytotoxic) and Laursen (aka many previous names) are both fascists.
You don't know what fascism is, you moron.
And you're the idiot who challenged me on current record US energy independence.
See my Wall Street Journal link below.
Now go get your shine-box.
Your last statement was we already had record energy production where you were shown to be wrong with links. Your cite below also shows your prior assertion was wrong. Lol.
I said we are experiencing record oil/gas production in 2023. Which is true.
But GOP candidates like to jack off in their mouth some bullshit about Donnie's "energy independence". Well, Old Joe is the true Mr. Energy Independence according to the Wall St Journal and Forbes and all production stats.
Don't forget that turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
No you didn't shrike. Why I provided you the links. Lol.
Fascism, corporatism. That's what it is, you pedo dweeb. Large corporations doing things at the behest of government. It is at the core of Mussolini's fascism, you idiot.
https://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/
The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people.
Another keystone of Italian corporatism was the idea that the government’s interventions in the economy should not be conducted on an ad hoc basis, but should be “coordinated” by some kind of central planning board.
These exact sentiments were expressed by Robert Reich (currently the U.S. Secretary of Labor [ed-this is from 1994]) and Ira Magaziner (currently the federal government’s health care reform “Czar”) in their book Minding America’s Business.
A third defining characteristic of economic fascism is that private property and business ownership are permitted, but are in reality controlled by government through a business-government “partnership.” As Ayn Rand often noted, however, in such a partnership government is always the senior or dominating “partner.”
And this includes social media today, twit.
ECONOMIC fascism? You're really that stupid?
I said "fascism". The regular old traditional right-wing strongman White Nationalist type the GOP loves.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a
TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
So you meant a jumble of words that don’t actually mean fascism. Italian fascism is old original fascism. Same intent, different toolbox.
NAZIs were left wing btw dummy.
Aryan Supremacy is right wing, moron.
All white nationalists join the GOP. Fatass Donnie's "base" in fact.
And fits right in with the Democratic Party from slavery to the Klan to Jim Crow to modern "affirmative action".
When and who?
Because Richard Spencer and David Duke both endorsed the Democrats.
No. They were left wing. So were Italian fascists. They stated so in their own writings. I know you prefer historical adjustments to reality to create a narrative, but those records of their own statements are still available.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar and a TDS-addled pile of shit.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
While this is rich:
Buttplug: "You don’t know what fascism is, you moron."
ITL: *gives dictionary definition of facism*
Buttplug: "NOT THAT FASCISM!!! My own definition I use to demagogue with."
I hope the next kid you touch kicks you in the nose, Buttplug.
Soros’ Pedo Bushpig 2 is in rare form today.
The nose?
And you are so stupid that you will claim that a description of the policies and beliefs of the people who actually called themselves Fascists is not really what Fascism is.
Saw Garbage in Boston on Saturday, and Shirley had to talk politics. Hate it when entertainers feel the need for that shit.
Talking about the writer’s strike she’s saying “Fuck greedy capitalists! Fuck fascism! Fuck the rich!"
I yelled back “You’re rich!” A few heads turned. I thought it was funny.
Other than that it was pretty darn awesome.
Thought that was weird too. Wait! That was you?!?!
I was up in like 303.
Were you the balloon guy?
If you heard it from the second balcony, a little to the right, it was me. Maybe someone else said it too.
Not being fans of The Sleeping Birds we left soon as Garbage was done. Just outside an old black lady with long grey hair said "Did I miss Garbage?" Another person leaving said "Yeah, just missed them." She yelled "God damn it!" and smacked her cane down so hard it made a painfully loud snap. I think she broke it. Don't see that every day.
I wasn’t there. Just having fun. 😉
Bummer. You missed a great show.
I was weeding and cultivating the food crops on Saturday. Great that you had a good time.
This did not happen.
I hate that shit. I'm usually much happier when I have no idea of the political opinions of artists I like.
The two singers I’ve seen who went on political rants were both not from the here. Kind of odd. One from England and the other from Scotland. Talking in their accents about "the terrible plight of women and people of color" in this country. I'm almost but not quite interested in what they think they're talking about.
Music is weird like that. Movies? I’ll still call The Hunt for the Red October a solid film despite Alec “assault pistol” Baldwin starring in it.
US Energy production and independence hit all-time highs (Wall Street Journal)
U.S. crude oil production is widely expected to hit a record high this year. Less appreciated is that the country's fuel makers are already breaking records on a near monthly basis.
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-jobs-report-07-07-2023/card/the-u-s-energy-industry-is-quietly-breaking-production-records-89bPtjyuMDmU49VCDboo
Wow, you won't read about this on wingnut.com.
Uncle Joe - geopolitical energy genius!
Just last week you said he already hit record highs, was that you lying? And why are you cheering returning to 2019 levels? Thought you said Trump was terrible for the economy.
Do I also need to cite for you yet again it is happening on private and state lands, not lands the fedgov control?
So you do admit that we (the USA) is more energy independent than we were 2017-2021? Because we do produce more oil, more natural gas, and more green energy. Only coal is down but other sources more than make up for coal.
Just say it and I’ll shut up about it.
(because every idiot with a red hat on wrongly thinks Joe choked off domestic energy)
Did you read your own fucking link? In the first bullet point it says they are about to meet the November 2019 numbers shrike. It is amazing watching you flail. Biden literally lowered production where he could for the last 3 years. You've been given link after link. Energy is growing where Biden has no say. You have been given link after link. Keep flailing buddy.
Look at the graph you moron. The one that says "net imports of petroleum and related liquids".
Joe's years are the only independent (net export) years. Fatass Donnie never saw oil/gas independence.
The link that shows they haven't passed Nov 2019 yet? Literally the first bullet point?
Why are you avoiding federal lands vs state and private shrike? Where does Budenhave regulatory authority? It is the same bullshit Obama tried to use on idiots like yourself.
Always read Pluggo's links, because he doesn't and they usually refute him.
I should feel bad constantly beating up on the retard but I just don't.
Don't. He's gotten the beating the hard way; he's earned it.
You three Trump Homos need to write the Wall Street Journal and tell them their article is wrong.
It isn't wrong. You're lying about what it shows, Pluggo.
That's rich, the pedo who likes little boys calling others "homos".
Biden literally lowered production where he could for the last 3 years.
Another lie of yours. Production has LITERALLY risen every year since 2020 (Fatass Donnie's last full year as POTUS).
You keep avoiding federal vs state and private. I wonder why? Is it because as Soros lobbies Biden to lower energy production he buys up private production to earn a profit off the back of government influence? Want that link again?
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Is his keyboard sticky from spanking it to underage porn?
Look, another Red Hat trump Cultist infecting a libertarian board?
Did Sevo recruit you from the Tenderloin?
When you posted kiddie porn links you should have expected it would come to haunt you.
His actions are often touching.
It will haunt him for all time.
Remember that turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Net imports have been falling since 2006. This is just a continuation of an almost 20 year trend. With an uptick in production starting in 2008.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php
So your point is that there was really nothing that Fatass Donnie did to further US energy independence.
Well, we agree on that.
If he did nothing why are you applauding matching his Nov 2019 output?
I should also mention that much of the federal growth under Biden was from leases Trump signed before leaving office. Stupid facts. Biden then canceled many of them.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-administration-suspend-some-oil-gas-leases-alaska-report-2021-06-01/
turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a TDS-addled asshole, a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Oh yeah? Do it without editing.
Best and smartest thing you've said all day.
Let's see you do it.
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1680933428437348355?t=vyNyTZfmIbd4dcqvSfdWAQ&s=19
350k unaccompanied minors came across the border since 2021
85k of them have “gone missing”
Possibly the largest child-trafficking op in history and nothing is being done about it
Knowing the Democrats historical modus operandi, they're probably chained up in fields somewhere picking cotton.
Or chained up in some ephebophilic creep's basement, similar to what Vinson Filyaw did.
I'd assume chained up in a warehouse mass producing that "fresh child scent" for the first family and friends of Epstein.
Nardz, what's more important? Ending slavery or allowing Big Daddy Koch get cheaper labor?
unaccompanied minors
How is that verified? I've read about many "minors" crossing the border who are actually young adult men lying about their ages. And, the "unaccompanied" actually being shepherded by unrelated traffickers.
Well, when was the last time anyone on the left argued in favor of free speech?
IIRC it was 1968.
Twitter has changed the settings of every user with open DMs, blocking non-Twitter Blue subscribers from messaging them.
Did anyone make any kind of a slide joke yet?
I guess they're down the intertubes.
Speech should be moderated by government until a future time when it is determined that said oversight is no longer necessary.
"The Kennedys are the opposite of this — they are a cadre of reckless, womanizing, substance-abusing mediocrities of middling IQ, who have produced a staggering array of displays of bad judgment and poor character over the decades."
Well, sure. Now that we have a dirty anti-vaxxer front and center.
Isn't it weird how 2023 lefties sound exactly like 60's conservatives?
You mean 1860s?
"Pro-free speech decisions should only be celebrated if the plaintiff's motives are as pure as the driven snow."
I wonder if they felt the same about Larry Flynt.
Also, Reason: The government itself has no free speech "rights". The Constitution is a limitation on what the government can do. It is not a protection of the government.
Do you mean how Reason felt about Larry Flynt? You can google it:
https://reason.com/2021/02/16/larry-flynt-made-the-world-freer-for-everybody-by-pushing-boundaries/
Who are you quoting in the second part? The two seem to be in opposition.
"We're not sure if there is a 1st Amendment or not.", U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit says, "...because nothing else in this Nazi-Empire conquered USA seems to obey the peoples law over their government."
Um, uh, dur.... What was the VERY F'EN purpose of the judicial branch again? DO UR F'EN JOBS judges.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The Nazi-Empire has grown so big; the law enforcement agency (executive) is actually executing all the CRIME in the USA. What to do when government starts working for criminals instead of to ensure Liberty and Justice for all?
https://twitter.com/truthtsar/status/1680745423470829571?t=PYUt2FzUYZLzIuxjZJyf7A&s=19
Based on the last 2 weeks, the Democrat platform is:
- Refusal to condemn child sex trafficking (and attack those trying to stop it)
- Depopulation
- Aggressive censorship
- Fighting to allow college applicants to be rejected based solely on their skin color
- Starting WWIII
- High inflation
- Record debt levels
What other items did I miss?
Democrats hate America, and it shows.
#Biden #FJB
Democrats hate humans, and it shows.
Anyone who aided in lifting a senile fool to the Presidency chose to be an enemy of the USA.
The only right that government agents have regarding the 1st amendment is the right to shut the fuck up. Even a "recommendation" regarding other people's speech by a government agent is a violation of the Constitution. They are not making the requests as private citizens.
Government action is never "potentially" coercive. It is always coercive.
Yup. It's just laughable that people will talk about it as if the government was just making neutral observations and suggestions.
And it seems like not that long ago collusion in influencing information people get about elections was supposed to be some serious crime.
With many of those "displays of bad judgment and poor character" done by Teddy. Having someone like him in your family tree is bound to bring down the average a bit.
Unlike the chaste and restrained Clinton's and bidens
It doesn't require an active imagination to predict how far a future administration (of either party) might venture if the courts greenlighted this level of governmental meddling in private moderation decisions.
Perhaps we should focus on how far the fucking current Biden administration might venture.
You suck at reason logic. If the democrats commit atrocities the only down side is that Republicans might use the power when they are in office.
If The the pres or vp say we should start killing off Americans, that's not news, but if a republican running for dog catcher in an unknown town in Alabama says they want to end all abortions, that's national news
You forgot the downside of when Democrats do something horrible they create an opportunity for Republicans to pounce. It's never the Democrat action, always the Republican response.
https://twitter.com/MagicBelle1/status/1680918083127369731?t=1vmlLfcXZKREQXwowFjZgw&s=19
July 2023. Hampton, Georgia. Mass Shooting. This story should get 10x the coverage Ahmaud Arbery did but it won't. That's because a Black man went out and shot to death 4 White senior citizens. The suspect, Andre Longmore, 40, was killed in a shootout with law enforcement officers yesterday afternoon when they tried to apprehend him. A Henry County deputy and two Clayton County police officers were wounded during the incident. One of the officers was shot in the back and was taken by helicopter to an Atlanta trauma center. The others are expected to recover.
Police had been looking for Longmore after he opened fire on White residents in the Dogwood Lakes subdivision of Hampton, killing three men and a woman on Saturday. All of the victims were residents of the same neighborhood where Longmore also lived, and were shot within a 10-minute span. The victims have been identified as 67-year old Scott Leavitt and his wife, 66-year old Shirley Leavitt, as well as 65-year-old Steve Blizzard and 66-year-old Ronald Jeffers. Longmore's motives remain under investigation.
Longmore’s motives remain under investigation.
Huh. So they're actually keeping their Jump to Conclusions mats stowed this time. I wonder why?
Because Psychotic of Color.
First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere recently wrote for Reason about this case (Missouri v. Biden), suggesting that "the political noise surrounding the case is distracting attention from the important First Amendment principles at stake."
A ridiculously illogical assertion considering both that the opportunity to rule on this “important principle” only exists because of the political noise, and that the censorship targets political activity. But he had to throw it in to virtue signal his antipathy to the right, the same reason ENB accepts and highlights this nonsense.
More than half his article was him talking about the political noise around it and inferring it wouldn't be an issue if Republicans stopped talking about censorship.
They can’t be understood to support censorship, but by god they can ensure everyone leaves the room thinking the GOP sucks even though it was only they who acted to stop it.
Revealing priorities. The author and ENB are hardly alone though as this is exactly the propaganda goal of all the trolls.
^This.
You’re saying that ENB sandwiched in implied criticism of the GOP that shouldn’t apply?
Yep, with a Cuban sandwich.
Principals are more important than principles.
https://twitter.com/realtrmlx/status/1680946402065514496?t=oZQX1DzbqAnx8Khc762N_g&s=19
Colonel Mark Wooten of the USAF Civil Air Patrol says the only guidance he puts out there for (them) is to “stop hiring middle aged white people…especially dudes.”
[Video]
Hey, he got his.
“stop hiring
middle aged white people…especially dudescompetent experienced people and hire based on a DEI checklist instead.”Bold strategy...
LGB all you can be. Wait, that’s the army.
Aim not so high.
That's a good thing—even if the motives of the parties who spurred this decision might not be so pure, and even if Doughty's ruling was a little too credulous of their claims.
Phew, I'm glad we got that clarified.
When you start hiring health care workers by the color of their skin rather than by their knowledge of medicine.
The story of "Killer King" , the MLK/Drew Medical Center in a black part of Los Angeles that operated from 1972 to 2007 with a mostly-black staff with the expected level of fuck-ups, cover-ups, fraud, waste, and abuse, and careful aversion of the eyes until the Mexicans took over the neighborhood and then it became alright to mention the problems.
Jesus Fucking Christ.
He speedball narcos and uppers
In his pretty patient
Asked who am I
Just like mark thurman
A perfect remedy
For breathing and apathy
An invitation you cant decliiiineeee
He's a killer kiiiing
Amphetimens with a knee scrape
Infusions with aiiiidddds
“We’re being oppressed and marginalized!”
Is that real?
Yeah, London.
I don't know what the circle is for, Bonus Hole maybe.
It's for "intersex" people - "Intersex is a general term used for a variety of situations in which a person is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the boxes of “female” or “male.” Sometimes doctors do surgeries on intersex babies and children to make their bodies fit binary ideas of “male” or “female”." (from: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/whats-intersex)
Imagine living in a time where an authoritarian minority demands idealogical purity. And as a constant reminder to their detractors, they fly a flag and post symbols of their party to demonstrate their power.
And it's like the opposite of the Mitchell and Webb "Are We The Baddies?" sketch where, rather than being unable to conceptualize themselves as the baddies because they wear skulls on their arms, they can't conceptualize themselves as oppressing anyone because they wear rainbows.
It's time for ENB to publish another tutorial.
https://gizmodo.com/engagement-instagram-threads-falls-meta-blocks-vpn-eu-1850640519
Shortly after Meta’s new Twitter clone Threads hits 100 million users, analysts say that the app’s user engagement has precipitously dropped off.
NBC News reports that data from Sensor Tower and Similarweb indicates that the newly released social media platform from Meta has seen a drop off in attention from users. Sensor Tower Data suggests that on Tuesday and Wednesday, daily active users dropped 20% from Saturday while time spent on the platform fell 50% from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. Similarweb’s data reportedly paints a picture equally as grim as daily active users dropped 25% from a peak on July 7 to Monday, while time spent on the app dropped over 50% from 20 minutes to 8 minutes.
LOL 94°
In Denver today we're under a "heat advisory" and there will be "cooling centers" in various rec centers and public libraries. How hot is it going to get, you might ask?
"The Denver area will see high temperatures soar to near 100 degrees Monday and nearly that hot on Tuesday."
Near 100! Oh noez! It's the end of the world as we know it! AIYEEEEE!!!111!!!!!11!!!!!
Reason keeps eating my calculator link.
Using Vicksburg, Mississippi, as it is in the middle of this guy's high-heat area, there's a high of 94F today, dry bulb temperature. The relative humidity is supposed to be 52% based on a dew point of 74F. There is no way the wet bulb temperature is 94F. Using a calculator, it's 80F.
there’s a high of 94F today, dry bulb temperature
Given that the moron's claimed wet bulb temp is the same as the actual dry bulb temp, I'm guessing either he's deliberately lying and conflating the two in the hopes that people will think the real temp is something like 110, or he's too stupid to understand the difference. He just heard the term "wet bulb temperature" recently and went with it because it sounds more "Science-y."
THey have to be making shit up or misunderstanding the terms (or maybe conflating wet bulb temp with heat index). A wet bulb temp of 95F is equivalent so something like 160 dry. So unless it was like 120 with high humidity, they are full of shit.
This weather panic is all made up. My PC at works showed a near record temperature last week. 90 degrees F on July 13 or so was supposed to be the record and it was 88 degrees out. . Nope. I looked up July 13 ,1987 and it was 94 degrees high for the day. I remember because I was outside racing my bike in Wisconsin at the time. Just one example but it seems none of this weather business is true. They (weatherman/"Journalists") are actively lying to us. There was a national report of the hottest ever from a couple of weeks ago that was retracted, but quietly. The weather outside today was 80 degrees for the high. In the middle of July. In Iowa. Next predicted high over 90 is in over a week. Forecasts are fine. Their history and histrionics are awful.
Oh no! It's never been 95 and humid in the deep south before!
The pivot to climate panic has really been something to behold.
95F and humid...
In the South, that's typically called "summer". It's also why the region had a lower population until the advent of air conditioning.
It was 100 degrees and 10% humidity here in Albuquerque yesterday. It's a bit cooler, today.
Photos from Disney’s woke Snow White remake leaked.
They were mocked so heavily that Disney panicked and claimed the pictures were fake. A day later they had to admit that the photos are real just “not official.”
It's happening, but it's not as bad as you say.
Those photos were fucking hilarious. They looked like shitty cosplayers/ renaissance fair costumes. I can't wait to see how much money that piece of garbage loses.
this could end up being the worst studio film ever made
That's quite the feat when you consider things like Gigli, Leonard: Part 6, and Battlefield Earth were made and released.
When you consider all that it also makes one wonder: how bad was Batgirl that they just cancelled it after it was done filming and took the tax write-off instead of going through with releasing it when they released all those pieces of shit?
The majority of commercial films that are started never make it to release. Yes, it does make one wonder how bad they have to be to not make the cut.
Ishtar
Shit, I'd forgotten that existed. Now I'll have to watch it, b/w Krull or Ice Pirates to cleanse the palate.
The industry can’t afford not to go on strike
I gather that Peter Dinklage is aiming to be the only dwarf actor working. Can't have anyone else stealing his thunder. 6 other diminutive actors could have had decent high profile roles, but apparently dwarfs are offensive even though they are supposed to be mythical creatures and not malformed humans.
It's called "pulling up the ladder behind you".
Or step stool as the case may be.
They could have at least given those six actors small parts. Alas, the producers were short with them.
Latina Snow White is pretty good too. I presume the snow falling on her crypt as she sleeps will be dyed a light olive-beige.
I don’t understand the obsession with retarded race swapping. Race swapping I get, sometimes you end up with Sam Jackson as Nick Fury. Sometimes it even winds up being the right thing and Jason Mamoa ends up as Aquaman or somebody other than John Wayne winds up playing Gengis Kahn.
But in The Last Jedi, where Troopers are supposed clones or clone-adjacent and the villains are supposed to be Nazi-esque culturally-monolithic stand-ins, or The Little Mermaid, where a creature that lives in the deep-dark ocean several generations over, or in the case of Snow White, where her name is her fucking skin color, I don’t understand how somebody doesn’t get punched in the face for being that stupid sooner.
It only makes “We should cast Ryan Gosling as The Black Panther because, hey, why not?” seem more reasonable.
I’m waiting for them to greenlight the last nigger on earth, staring tom hanks
Biden’s social media team got Community Nuked twice today
Seems to happen a lot to them, but then again, they lie like Pluggo.
I find it interesting the types of comments that are promoted and prioritized in the top-level comments here. So far, the ones that I see that receive favorable attention are ones that:
- repeat well-known conservative activists (Matt Walsh, James Lindsay)
- show instances of Biden stumbling and/or "the left behaving badly"
- show instances of conservatives being victimized or marginalized
- making paranoid assertions (Democrats hate America, Ukraine is the real villain, etc.)
What's largely missing is discussion of libertarian ideas. Seems as though the comments are really just about re-enforcing a pro-right tribal loyalty.
Yup. Reason has provided a free-of-charge daily hangout spot for a bunch of people who are somewhere along the conservative-libertarian spectrum. Several of them way toward the conservative end.
The big mystery is why Reason's management hasn't shut down the comments section by now.
"The big mystery is why Reason’s management hasn’t shut down the comments section by now."
Hahahahahahahahahaha... Oh wow!
Mike and Jeff can't figure out why A Libertarian Magazine hasn't stopped people from posting things they disagree with.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable because nobody would pay even $0.50 for this dreck.
If conservatives get their way and eliminate Section 230, you can bet these and most other comment sections will go *poof* into the ether.
Okay Sqrlsy.
Maybe ENB doesn’t get enough of you fawning of her on Mastodon and needs some of that puppy dog behavior here.
lol is that really the "big mystery" to you? is it?
Given how stupid Mike is, a lot of things are likely a big mystery to the sea lion.
Case in point: The criticism of the Robert Corn-Revere article yesterday on the Missouri v. Biden decision.
The article was well-written and supported the main conclusion of the case, stopping the government from directly interfering in social media moderation decisions. It was unambiguously a win for the First Amendment.
But because the article did not support the *entirety* of the decision, and also criticized some of the Team Red arguments that they made, it was trashed in the comments, and also here.
So even in a case when a Reason article comes to the correct conclusion from a principled perspective, it still gets trashed because it is not doing enough cheerleading for the 'correct' tribe.
And these of course are inevitably from the same people who claim that Reason isn't "libertarian enough".
Of course Jeffey has to lie about the facts to make his point, if he were honest he’d have to change his conclusion. We all know that wasn’t going to happen.
– repeat well-known conservative activists (Matt Walsh, James Lindsay)
James Lindsay is not a conservative activist.
– show instances of Biden stumbling and/or “the left behaving badly”
You mean, do journalism. My paper does this constantly. Hey, let's see if we can find a picayune example of people behaving badly today... Wow, that didn't take long.
– show instances of conservatives being victimized or marginalized
There's no evidence that conservatives are being unfairly targeted by social media... the lower court ruling barring federal officials from meeting with tech companies, urging content moderation is a "win" for Republicans and conservatives.
– making paranoid assertions (Democrats hate America, Ukraine is the real villain, etc.)
This requires too much nuanced analysis for a quick reply.
"James Lindsay is not a conservative activist."
Yes, but Jeff in the past has also inferred that Russell Brand, Matt Taibbi and Joe Rogan were conservative activists, so his definition of conservative must be incredibly fluid.
Jeffy's definition of "conservative" seems to be anyone to the right of Pol Pot.
That's the second time recently, you've complained about your local newspaper here. Are you a subscriber? Do you pay them anything?
Are you the Reason cop?
Dee’s comment approaches irrelevant authority. In the upcoming book Mike the Sea Lion, this logical fallacy will be covered.
– show instances of Biden stumbling and/or “the left behaving badly”
Oh, by the way, this has been Reason's bread and butter, especially in the realm of policing. There's plenty to talk about in regards to bad, systemic issues with policing in the country, but often times they just throw example of random cop in random town doing something bad, even when the cop was sanctioned, fired or charged with a crime. I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of cops there are currently working in this country in every town, county and state, but you need to have SOME kind of standards if your journalism beat is police reform.
To dig a little deeper and show my willingness to bowf-sidez this topic, an admitted example of the right engaging in "examples of the left behaving badly" would be LibsOfTikTok.
However, what was interesting about LibsofTikTok is the reaction to it from the left, not so much what LoTT shows. The institutional reaction to LoTT is an example of "the left behaving badly".
but often times they just throw example of random cop in random town doing something bad, even when the cop was sanctioned, fired or charged with a crime.
Like today's example that ENB failed to note involved 3 babies in a car with zero car seats and the cops involved already being disciplined.
"you need to have SOME kind of standards if your journalism beat is police reform"
Radley Balko kicked ass in the police and justice reform area when he was at Reason. People often confuse the Reason blog, which is where we are hanging out, for Reason's main work, which is the magazine and policy papers.
Seems as though the comments are really just about re-enforcing a pro-right tribal loyalty.
I like this new take, jeffy. Pre-emptively lashing out at the people who criticize your fallacy laden thought experiments makes you look like even more of a douchebag than normal. That means less explaining to the uninitiated.
The other day I successfully started a conversation about negative vs positive rights. That was a refreshingly libertarian conversation. Guess who didn't participate? Yeah, the loud ones.
How would you know? You claim to have muted everyone.
Maybe he thinks he did while using his Sqrlsy sock.
Your conversation was one post.
do you really find that interesting? do you?
Comments are promoted and prioritized?
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1680963746552840197?t=FUCWfgSx7zutd8H6PP7RFQ&s=19
RCP GOP Primary average: DeSantis slips under 20% for first time since mid-May
Trump — 53.8% (+34.1)
DeSantis — 19.7%
Pence — 6%
Ramaswamy — 4.5%
Haley — 3.3%
Scott — 3%
Christie — 2.5%
Hutchinson — 1%
Burgum — 0.2%
[Link]
All the "Never Trump"ers are approaching 50%.
Might be a good time to consider home schooling.
https://twitter.com/iamyesyouareno/status/1680896879326887939
They're both students. The big one must've failed like 12 times.
Maybe not. Lots of Black 12-year-olds look like they're 20.
Hillary referred to them as super predators.
If that video was taken in 2023, yes…because they are still wearing masks.
As far as the beating, well, we all routinely saw or even experienced stuff that bad or worse when we were in school. We just didn't have cameras back then.
Yeah I think you mean 2022 but you're correct on the facts otherwise. I should not have posted that. I got some context after. In my defense I will only say that when I was in 6th grade if anybody slugged a little girl like that the response would have been fast and furious and the fat bitch would be on the floor waiting for the cops to show up. But that was a long time ago.
Federal Officials Can Keep Pressing Tech Platforms To Remove Content for Now
Cant wait to hear from Reason about why this shouldnt bother me
3) It is happening and it is actually a good thing!
"It's okay if they're complying with government censorship demands voluntarily" - JeffMikeSarc
How the Climate Change emergency was invented.
That's a photo of a bunch of Republicans, you know.
It's fascinating how you idiots can believe in a conspiracy that implicates the entire global scientific community in an enormous lie that has hoodwinked most of the governments and serious people of the earth...
But it's a bridge too far to suggest that oil companies might have a stake in a conspiracy of their own. Even when they've admitted to such. Even when they themselves no longer deny the science that they used to attempt to deny.
I'd say you were stupid but it mostly seems to be pure cuckery.
Here is what my longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, wrote about climate change.
http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=380576&p=4522359#post4522359
No wonder he greatly influenced my own political views for over twenty-five years!
“That’s a photo of a bunch of Republicans, you know.”
Because this meme template was originally a slam on trickle-down economic policy by the left, Tony Baloney.
“that implicates the entire global scientific community in an enormous lie that has hoodwinked most of the governments and serious people of the earth…”
Except it doesn’t, thousands of climatologists have said it’s bullshit over the years.
Your lie is being pushed by a small cabal of media owners, globohomo organizations and corporations, and billionaire kleptocrat oil investors who discovered that reducing production in the face of increasing need will drive up prices and make them incredibly rich. With today’s technology, known reserves and extraction techniques gas should be less than 65 cents a gallon. Want to guess why it isn’t?
But keep thinking if you eat bugs and pay carbon taxes to the government the weather will be gooder.
Ironically, they're promising that they will make the weather worse.
"Except it doesn’t, thousands of climatologists have said it’s bullshit over the years."
It must be terribly freeing to have given yourself permission to simply lie shamelessly.
Again, not even Exxon denies global warming anymore.
the climate change 'emergency' is definitely fabricated.
I wonder why all the 'solutions' just happen to be the same ones all the commies want to do for any other 'emergency' that gets discussed.
"What I believe in is that parents ought to raise their children."
Silly geese, limited government is no longer even a rhetorical aim of the Republican party. We'll see how long "libertarians" continue to rest all of their laissez-faire credentials on mere tax cuts for zillionaires, but we're well into the Total State era of the GOP. The state gets to decide what you can't read, what medical procedures you can't get even with painstaking consultation with doctors and family, and what sorts of entertainment you're allowed to watch.
If you're still on this train you're not only not a libertarian, you're more authoritarian than any leftist you've ever trashed.
The annoying thing is most of you know this perfectly well. Call them concentration camps, call them concentration camps of liberty, you just care about destroying the tribes of people you've been groomed to hate by your media.
If you’re still on this train you’re not only not a libertarian, you’re more authoritarian than any leftist you’ve ever trashed.
Republicans choose authoritarianism and Democrats choose totalitarianism. What's a libertarian to do?
*Tony makes up horseshit*
Sarcasmic: "Both sides"
ML, please leave me alone. I don't respond to any of your comments. I don't even read them. Please show some common courtesy and stop replying to all my posts. Muting me would be even better. You're like a dog sticking its nose up my ass, except it doesn't tickle. Go away. Please.
Sarcasmic, you shitposting troll, I don't give a fuck whether you read them or not. I post to refute and mock you, not debate you.
You're a dishonest, drunken ideologue. I could write responses with the wit of Churchill and the wisdom of Chesterton and that still wouldn't convince your indoctrinated ass. Debating you is pointless, but refuting and mocking you is always worthwhile.
I post to refute and mock you, not debate you.
This comment says so much about you. It says that you come here to troll the people you hate and to lecture them about why you think they are wrong. Your mind is completely closed to dialogue and discussion.
It explicitly says that you come here in bad faith. After all, you are going to "refute" sarcasmic even when he's right. And by extension, same goes for me, correct?
We're not going to mute you, dude. If you can't handle the heat, it's up to you to get out of the kitchen, not tell the oven and stove to stop being hot.
Just means I'll keep ignoring the turds. Granted they're smaller when they're dried up and grey, but they still clutter the page. Oh well.
You just responded to him dumdum.
We also know you don't mute anyone because as soon as we use a term you start using it. It has been an amusing thing to do.
*sigh*
Cite?
*sight*
Republicans do suck, but at least they aren't explicitly opposed to the very concept of individual rights and freedom as most of the left seems to be these days.
But they are and Democrats are not.
You may be referring to a handful of irrelevant blue-hairs on Twitter, but not the Democratic party. The Republican party, you'll recall, tried to overthrow the constitution.
...
No shit.
Making extra salary every month from house more than $15,000 just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18,000 from this easy home job. Everybody can now makes extra cash online easilyBy Just Follow————>>>OPEN THIS DETAIL>GOOGLE WORK
Federal Officials Can Keep Pressing Tech Platforms To Remove Content for Now, Court Says
Ah, Section 230, the 1A Of The Internet! Between preventing tech platforms from being sued by their users, overtly allowing government censorship, and providing a rallying cry for useful idiots to signal to each other that they can use a keyboard and spell liberty at the same time, is there anything it can't do?
I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h.I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.
Here’s what I do……………..>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
How depraved has this country become when a Federal judge supports censorship instead of supporting the 1st Amendment? Totally depraved!
Huh? It’s an appeals court issuing a temporary stay until oral arguments. Just standard procedural court stuff.
...and during that time of the temporary stay a presidential administration can still censor people. The 1st amendment is very explicit on free speech, only a depraved judge would order such a stay for even one minute.
But the application of the First Amendment is not clear here:
https://reason.com/2023/07/17/federal-officials-can-keep-pressing-tech-platforms-to-remove-content-for-now-court-says/?comments=true#comment-10157720
Bullshirt. There is zero ambiguity here. Government pressing tech to censor American citizens.
A stay should only be allowed if there is some evidence the complainant might be harmed if the stay is not granted. How can the Federal government be "harmed" if prohibited from censorship?
Total madness.
How is this even a question, and why are they continuing the violations to continue?