Everything's Computer
Plus: "Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?" and more...

Everything's computer! But not at the IRS.
"The upheaval at the IRS is already having real impacts," reports The Washington Post, referring to plans (already underway) to reduce the workforce by half. "Sources familiar with the agency report that its level of phone service is falling, in part because employees are spending their time waiting to use shared computers to respond to [the Department of Government Efficiency's] requests for weekly emails detailing their work. (Not all IRS employees are issued their own computers.) And they report that taxpayer behavior is already adjusting to the reality of a diminished IRS workforce: IRS receipts—taxes paid already and taxes the agency is scheduled to receive from those who have already filed—are significantly lower than they were at this point last filing season."
Wait, back up. They don't have their own computers? And they're sitting in a queue like schoolchildren in the library, waiting to use a single shared computer to respond to Musk's five-things-you-did-last-week emails? How long does it take to write those emails? And why don't they have computers?
You are reading Reason Roundup, our daily, morning newsletter.
Want articles just like this in your inbox every morning? Subscribe to Reason Roundup. It's free and you can unsubscribe any time.
Look, I'm worried by the slapdash approach Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has taken. But the continued federal employee freakout over being asked to justify their jobs by detailing what they've done at work makes no sense to me.
I know a girl from college who is a "Work-Life Specialist and Mindfulness Facilitator" at the U.S. Department of Transportation. She leads yoga sessions and "meditation made simple" workshops for federal employees, per her LinkedIn. This is a job I don't want my taxpayer dollars funding. For Musk to apply scrutiny to this type of thing is a huge win for the American people.
There are lots of legitimate criticisms to make about whether cuts in staffing will actually lead to a better IRS. Taxpayer services will surely suffer if there are fewer people available to answer phone calls and emails; refunds might be delayed, which comes at a real cost to people. Worse tax collection means less revenue for the government, and it's not like spending is under control—expect the fiscal hole we're in to get worse if this continues. But "we just can't figure out how to ration computer use in the year 2025 to craft a bullet-pointed email" is an absurd line that elicits no sympathy, and just leaves me confused about what the hell they've been doing all this time. Everything's not, in fact, computer in the federal government.
"Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?" asks NPR's Michel Martin to Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar regarding Mahmoud Khalil.
"What is the specific conduct the government alleges that Mr. Khalil engaged in that merits removal from the United States?" asks Martin, to non-answers and equivocating from Edgar. "He has been promoting this anti-semitism activity at the university," Edgar responds, noting that Khalil's been supporting terrorist activity. "What specifically constitutes terrorist activity that he was supporting? What exactly do you say he did?" presses Martin. "I think you can see it on TV," says Edgar. "He is a legal permanent resident. So what is the standard [for deportation]?" asks Martin. "Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?" she follows up, over and over. This is a really good example of a journalist actually doing their job and trying to get legitimate answers from the administration.
Five-year anniversary of COVID-19 national emergency being declared: A dark day in our nation's history. How is Gavin Newsom commemorating it?
When Charlie Kirk brings up the French Laundry incident, you can see Newsom's animal instinct for comms kick in
1) Jokes: "I can't help you with a reservation"
2) Concedes: "We couldn't have this conversation without that conversation"
3) Disarms: "Dumbest bonehead move of my… pic.twitter.com/lRFlnmx1wO
— Lulu Cheng Meservey (@lulumeservey) March 12, 2025
Look, his political reflexes may be smooth—and there's a lot of speculating about whether he's aiming to step into the Democratic Party breach and run for president—but the little weasel must be put in his place (and a more adept, ferocious interviewer than Charlie Kirk could have done so; I volunteer as tribute). His hypocrisy is no small matter—and I say is because I'm not over it, and I don't think you should be either, and he's still actively in a position of power and probably seeking more of it. From a political standpoint, I don't think Newsom's shtick will play well—cities in his state have descended into crime and disorder; his COVID-19 record is abysmal; his taxes are insane—for the rest of the country. But, ugh, I guess, "watch this space," as they say. He's trying to transform himself into just a likable guy with a podcast. He's running.
Anyway, if you want to go down the COVID remembrance rabbit hole, I highly recommend this National Review article by Jeffrey Blehar: "I cannot summon memories of that era without becoming furious at what I suffered through, without reliving the sense of utter betrayal from all authority we experienced during that period. I have never felt more despairingly abandoned, and in fact actively oppressed, by every level of government than in those dark years."
Scenes from New York: How did pot legalization in New York go so terribly wrong? New documentary out, from me.
QUICK HITS
- "Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said his party would block a Republican spending bill to avert a government shutdown on Saturday and urged the GOP to accept a Democratic plan to provide funding through April 11 instead," reports Bloomberg. "Schumer's declaration Wednesday raised the stakes in an ongoing game of chicken between congressional Republicans and Democrats and appeared to heighten the risk of a shutdown at a time financial markets are hyper-sensitive to new disruption."
- "A majority of Americans believe President Donald Trump is being too 'erratic' in his moves to shake up the U.S. economy, as his imposition of tariffs against some of the nation's top trading partners hammers stock markets," finds a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.
- "In last year's campaign Donald Trump and J.D. Vance rightly ran against the speech excesses of the Democratic Party, with Vance saying views on censorship constituted the "biggest difference" between Trump and Kamala Harris, and Trump upon inauguration naming censored figures like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to high office. The administration initially acted like it understood the gravity of the situation, with Vance confronting Europe over its civil liberties crackdowns. They seemed to know what they wanted to achieve on this issue," writes Matt Taibbi. "That operation is now hanging by a thread. Trump is suddenly blowing it on the speech in a big way, with two big categories of screw-ups: pandering to Israel, and reaching into the same emergency-power cookie jar that foreign counterpart-jackasses like Keir Starmer and Olaf Scholz and Thierry Breton have recently raided, in efforts to suppress populist movements like Trump's own. Once he jumps on this bandwagon, we're all screwed, because there's nowhere left to run." Full thing is worth a read.
- "The US Federal Trade Commission is moving ahead with a sprawling antitrust probe of Microsoft Corp. that was opened in the waning days of the Biden Administration, signaling that Donald Trump's new FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson is going to prioritize scrutiny of tech giants," reports Bloomberg.
- True:
Catastrophic population collapse https://t.co/5d4R3noeHV
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 12, 2025
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
The upheaval at the IRS is already having real impacts...
THAT CERTAINLY WASN'T INTENDED.
Whoops.
You know what else wasn’t intended?
Wait, back up. They don't have their own computers?
I like to think that Musk walked in, set his sink down and then walked out with their computers.
What about a fvcking iphone
Government employees are typically not allowed to access their government email from personal devices.
Lock her up!
Which is why many/most receive a work phone. No idea if they're iPhones or Samsung.
More likely analog DynaTACs.
$5000 apiece
Biden's Buy American requirements mean only phones made by Alexander Graham Bell. Unfortunately his company was blown up by the Feds decades ago.
It used to always be Blackberries. When we would clean out empty offices, there would be boxes and boxes of bricked Blackberries every time.
Imagine the lines with 80k more agents.
The one's issued firearms will get head of line privileges. Because they say so. With a gun.
And they report that taxpayer behavior is already adjusting to the reality of a diminished IRS workforce: IRS receipts—taxes paid already and taxes the agency is scheduled to receive from those who have already filed—are significantly lower than they were at this point last filing season."
Wait, so they're implying that because people know that there might be fewer IRS agents in the future people aren't paying their taxes in the very recent past and present? Also, aren't virtually all personal income tax receipts paid via witholdings...so did people go and change their withholding schedule after DOGE announcements?
Stop using logic to destroy their narratives.
By the way, this is just another blatant fucking lie.
Estimated federal tax receipts, via the CBO:
January 2024: $477b
January 2025: $513b
February 2024: $271b
February 2025: $297b
I'd like to see numbers of agents as opposed to, say, 2023.
Also, if the phone service is getting worse due to massive time spent filling out their weekly email, then these people are more than useless.
How can they answer questions about people's taxes if they don't have access to a computer? Are the looking it up in a binder or something? Really, that would explain the wait times. Have to go look it up in hardcopy.
“If we arrest people in the country illegally for theft we might have to let more dangerous criminals go to make room.”
God damn these people are vile.
There are lots of legitimate criticisms to make about whether cuts in staffing will actually lead to a better IRS.
Depending on how you define better, it has more of a chance than increasing it by 87,000 people.
Libertarians now support endless increase in government employment.
And a stable, strong and robust IRS.
Liz has written a few things like this recently. The word "better" is just screaming to be defined.
Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?
So that's how we're characterizing this now?
Ha. Reason can't even deport us for our criticisms of reason.
It's weird that you'd take over a University to criticize a/the government rather than occupying a/the government directly.
It's almost like you're trying to take the University hostage in a display of force and the people intentionally making the "everything's speech" argument are just as retarded and even more evil and unscrupulous than the person making the "everything's computer" comment out-of-hand.
Campus activism is the dumbest and most absurd form of activism. And it's always at schools that bend over backwards to be super woke and progressive.
So that's how we're deliberately mischaracterizing this now?
FIFY. You're welcome. No charge, this time.
You know who else didn't charge?
Pickett? oh no wait he shouldn't have charged.
If Lee had listened to Longstreet, he wouldn't have.
^^
Anyone before 1950 and the creation of the Diner’s Club card?
Mr. Big/Dr. Kananga?
What is the specific conduct the government alleges that Mr. Khalil engaged in that merits removal from the United States?
Rubio seems to have laid it out pretty succinctly.
“I know a girl from college who is a "Work-Life Specialist and Mindfulness Facilitator" at the U.S. Department of Transportation. She leads yoga sessions and "meditation made simple" workshops for federal employees, per her LinkedIn. This is a job I don't want my taxpayer dollars funding. For Musk to apply scrutiny to this type of thing is a huge win for the American people.”
Name names Liz.
And post pics, of both of you sweaty in tights
Did she get stuck in the washing machine again?
Just a pair of step-sisters doing step-sister things.
*Edit: Raunchy by Bill Justis just shuffled on my Spotify. Fitting.
Are you assuming she's blonde?
Liz is not as emotional as sarc is regarding his ship yard "friends."
You might think it’d be the opposite, seeing as how her friend is real.
A big part of this is a rather toxic combination of the feds incorporating something that's a good idea--human performance as it relates to health and general wellness--with a bad idea of New Age woowoo due to the increasingly infantilized workforce of Milennials and Zoomers who collect mental illness markers like merit badges.
More fundamentally, it seems like a tiny manifestation of a huge human impulse: if something is a good idea, then government should provide it. Whether innate or learned, far too many modern Americans have this impulse again and again. I do think our ancestors did not, so when did we change?
Yoga and meditation seem to do people some good. I still have no idea what the fuck "mindfulness" is. And the federal government definitely doesn't need to be paying for it. I find it annoying enough that private sector employers try to manage employees health and fitness habits. I'm here to do my job. All I need in return is to get paid.
Yoga's great. I started doing it three years ago as a cheap workout option due to a good experience with the "Yoga" workout disk when I did P90X ages ago. There's hundreds of free videos on YouTube and even a video program is usually only about $100 plus another $50 or so for a good mat and yoga blocks.
I'm getting older and it's nice to still be able to get a good workout that's low-impact with that stuff. I highly recommend it for anyone who might be tired of the GAAAAAINNNZZ life or the pounding your body take from running.
46 years of baseball have limited me to yoga lol.
tired of the GAAAAAINNNZZ life
Put a bullet in me when that happens.
One word - Women.
I have a contingency pushing for office dogs. "Improved mental health" is how they try to sell it.
My thoughts exactly, women with too little to do at work. I get quarterly emails on how they are changing some name or word that has been used to describe something for decades. It is no longer disaster response it is now resiliency. The latest just got today is no longer Alert but Advisory.
“Dumbest bonehead move of my life — own it, move on, grow up. That’s me talking to myself!”
Notice "learn from it" isn't in the mix.
What he learned was the CA political machine will keep him elected despite whatever tard move he makes.
It's a lot easier to practice experience as "lessons aquired" rather than "lessons learned."
Trump is pandering g to Isreal by wanting to deport a terrorist? Tell tabibi to jump off a bridge, but don't quote the retard
Matt Habibi
I really liked his work on "The Twitter Files", so I subscribed to his Substack for a year.
I did not renew this subscription.
I see I made the right decision.
Yes, it's always best to ignore anyone who disagrees with you in any way.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said his party would block a Republican spending bill to avert a government shutdown on Saturday...
[Schumer shoots CR dead and corporate journalists turn to audience]
"Why would Republicans do this?"
Beat me to it.
Me too.
Embrace the Heel. Call out Schumer and give him the old Stone Cold Stunner on floor of the Senate and pound a beer* from the velvet ropes.
*reminder get an endorsement deal before choosing.
The true constitutional crisis happening is with activist dem appointed judges around D.C.
First we have Judge Howell (Obama) who ignores USSC precedent in Egan vs Navy that classification solely rests in the office of the president. Judge issues a TRO after praising how great Perkins Coie is, to not allow removal of security clearances.
Howell praised Perkins Coie as a “very well-respected and prominent law firm” at the start of the hearing and told Butswinkas that “I see why you’re so popular” after he made his impassioned arguments. The judge seemed skeptical throughout her questioning of the Justice Department on Wednesday.
The DOJ lawyer contended that the Steele Dossier “goes to the heart of national security” and that the claims of collusion between Trump and Russia “were proven to be false” as he cited John Durham’s special counsel investigation.
Howell cut him off, retorting, “I’ve also read the Mueller report… I’m not going to get into a debate about it.”
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/steele-dossier-linked-law-firm-fights-trump-court-over-security-clearance
There is no personal right to a security clearances. None.
Then we have Judge Reyes dismissing the power of a confirmed secretary of defense.
Laura Powell
@LauraPowellEsq
At the hearing today on the lawsuit challenging the ban on trans people in the military, Judge Reyes questioned the government attorneys about whether she should be required to defer to the judgment of the current Secretary of Defense. She pointed out that Pete Hegseth has not been in his role long. She said she believed Hegseth had no military experience, but then corrected herself and said something about having received an “early deployment” to do a TV show. She suggested that instead, she should defer to an opinion expressed by the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff years ago, emphasizing he had a “stellar” military record.
If you are looking for a constitutional crisis, we’ve got a judge who thinks she can disregard the proper exercise of executive authority if she believes the Cabinet member isn’t sufficiently qualified.
These are judges making personally and policy decisions not based on law or the constitution, doing their own legal research instead of facts presented (while somehow ignoring all precedent), to issue TROs and policy judgements against the executive.
Then the Judge who blocked Trumps EOs against DEI. Comes from a dem filled law firm.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/11/biden-judge-who-blocked-trumps-dei-orders-worked-for-law-firm-stacked-with-democrat-partisans/
The order prohibited enforcement of provisions included in directives signed by Trump. These provisions effectively terminated federal grants and contracts for DEI-related programs and prevented federal contractors/grantees from operating “any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti discrimination laws.”
Abelson argued that the plaintiffs showed “they are likely to prove” the challenged provisions “are unconstitutionally vague on their face.” He additionally claimed such policies likely violate the First Amendment, contending they represent “viewpoint discrimination.”
Abelson donated $350 to Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign and $110 to ActBlue. The latter is a Democrat-aligned fundraising platform that is the subject of congressional and state investigations over allegations that it allowed unlawful monies to fund left-wing political causes.
Ruling says Trump must fund the political speech of others. A ruling never held by the USSC.
All of these fucking activist judges need to be impeached yesterday.
Impeached with tar and feathers?
Yes.
I'm fine with just rope and lampposts.
Sounds like the Federal Marshals need to go pick someone up.
First, the enemies of the revolution were Republicans themselves. They were swept away or beaten into bending the knee.
Then, the enemies of the revolution were the "deep state", a nebulous, poorly-defined set of individuals thwarting the glorious work of Dear Leader. They are now being swept away.
Now the enemies of the revolution are the judges. They too will be dealt with in turn.
Long live the revolution! Long live Dear Leader!
I know you’re an ignorant bastard, but dude, if the commander in chief, head of the entire fucking executive branch cannot give or takeaway security clearances, then something is seriously wrong.
I even cited the precedent for the dimwit shit weasel.
He knows. He's just lying. It's part of his job.
Do you think the president has the authority to remove the security clearance of a law firm?
Do you think you are deliberately missing the forest for the trees, in order to stir up shit and troll some more? I think you are!
No, I’m asking a very simple question about Jesse’s post that you responded to.
No, you're sealioning and asking questions in bad faith. Fuck off.
No. It's valid to the dialogue. Your trying to evade because you know you are in the wrong.
Oh fuck off, both of you. Neither of you add anything of value or substance.
Poor jeff.
No. You fuck off, you DNC shill. The only thing you ever do here is lie for money.
That’s not sealioning, idiot. If you want an example of sealioning, check out Molly’s comments.
That’s not what sealioning means.
Let’s review:
Jesse posted a story about a judge restraining Trump from removing the security clearance of a lawfirm.
You responded with:
“First, the enemies of the revolution were Republicans themselves. They were swept away or beaten into bending the knee.
Then, the enemies of the revolution were the "deep state", a nebulous, poorly-defined set of individuals thwarting the glorious work of Dear Leader. They are now being swept away.
Now the enemies of the revolution are the judges. They too will be dealt with in turn.
Long live the revolution! Long live Dear Leader!”
This was clearly meant to criticize the complaint of a judge’s action. That action was to stop Trump from removing a security clearance from a law firm.
So, Lying Jeffy, does the president have the authority to remove the security clearance of a law firm?
This was clearly meant to criticize the complaint of a judge’s action.
No, it wasn't. It was meant to mock your tribe's perpetual claim that everyone opposed to your agenda are enemies that must be swept away in revolutionary fervor. The 'Deep State' are your team's version of the kulaks standing the way of the Glorious People's MAGA Revolution. People reading my comment in good faith understand this. You instead use it as an opportunity to ignore what I wrote and troll.
You instead use it as an opportunity to ignore what I wrote and troll.
This reminds me of a famous scene in Animal House:
Otter: They can't do that to our pledges!
Boone: Only we can do that to our pledges.
So it’s appropriate to criticize this judges actions?
It’s a simple question, dude, and it bears (no trunk pun intended) repeating:
Do you think the president has the authority to remove the security clearance of a law firm?
"stir up shit and troll some more"
And here's the winner of the 2025 Reason Comments Projection Award.
Sure, I'm the troll. Not the legions of Trump cultists who do nothing but stir up shit in the comments. Fuck you.
Everyone else is the troll, not poor Jeffy.
He's the only one who will tell us all the tRuTH. You're all liars.
What a myopic world view you have, Jeffy.
do nothing but stir up shit in the comments
I believe it was your friend sarc who described his own m.o. in almost exactly those words.
Hey, I got a "Fuck you" from Jeffy. Can I get a high-five?
( ⌒o⌒)人(⌒-⌒ )v
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣷⣤⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣦⡀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣧⠀⠀⢀⣠⣶⣿⡿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠈⠻⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⣬⣿⣿⣿⠀⢸⣿⣿⡏⠀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⢸⣿⡿⠀⢰⣿⣿⠟⠉⣿⣿⣷⣶⣶⡶⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠸⣿⠁⢀⣿⡿⠃⢠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠁⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣤⣾⣷⡀⠈⠻⣇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⠟⠁⣴⣿⡿⠟⢿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠋⣀⣴⣾⣿⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠙⠛⠛⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⣾⣿⣿⠛⠛⠛⠛⠻⠿⠿⠦⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠛⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⡿⠛⢿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡞⠁⠀⠀⠙⢿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Is that a high five to EBHS or a bitch slap to chemsarc?
Why can’t it be both?
It's all about the amount of follow through.
“Long live the revolution! Long live Dear Leader!”
That’s not trolling?
Jeff thinks he's got this superpower where all his old posts in the thread disappear the second they are no longer convenient to the lie he's spreading.
He really is a psychopath.
Like I said below, we seriously need a Chemjeff Hall of Shame somewhere with all his infamous lies and the bears-in-trunks incident.
Wait wait wait, just above you claimed that I was making a serious point objecting to some judge's ruling. Now you claim that I was trolling instead? Huh! I was actually mocking you, but you do accidentally admit that what I was doing was not about responding to the specific claim of a judge. Like you tried to admit earlier. So go fuck yourself.
“claimed that I was making a serious point”
I made no such claim Lying Jeffy. The response was obviously not a serious one. It was still in response to an article about a judge restraining Trump’s ability to revoke a security clearance and appeared to be arguing against that criticism. Both can be true.
So I’ll ask again for clarification:
Does the president have the authority to remove the security clearance of a law firm?
I've had that particular retard on mute for as long as the feature has been available.
Everyone knows this is bullshit.
Sarc's too busy looking for people who'll give him attention to mute anyone.
And even when he hits "mute" he ends up peaking inside the gray boxes.
I don’t think he can help himself.
He doesn't peek, his browser logs him out!
We saw part of your list.
Now, pretty please, with sugar on top, POST THE FUCKING LIST.
Remember how right after #34orangefelonies, some people changed their handles here, and you got confused and started responding to people you were pretending to have muted?
Lol. So true.
“Stir up shit and troll some more”- that sounds like your job
chemtard radical deathfat is pissed that his Cultural Revolution is getting its well-deserved counter-revolution.
See? At least RRWP is honest enough that what his tribe is doing is his own type of revolution.
Do you think the president removing the security clearance of a law firm is a revolutionary act?
Maybe if your lefty boos didn't act like spastics, those wouldn't be necessary.
This shit has been going on since the Thermidorean Reaction, so don't whine when your side gets back what it's been giving.
GFY
It’s so insane it’s like a scene from a movie about a corrupt judge in some small town.
Your team's cult behavior is becoming downright Stalinist in its character.
Stalin maintained his grip on power because (1) he controlled the media, and with that control, (2) he argued that all of the problems that the people could see for themselves - hunger, famine, poverty - were not the fault of Stalin, but were instead the fault of everyone else who let Stalin down. Hence the show trials and the executions of "enemies of the revolution" who let down Dear Leader.
In the present case, we have a right-wing media bubble which is pretty much hermetically sealed, with only Trump-approved or Trump-friendly narratives permitted to be expressed, and all of the problems that are caused by Trump himself - his erratic decision-making, his militant threats against allies - are not caused by him, but instead caused by shadowy forces allied against him. It's never Trump's fault, it's the GOPe's fault! It's the Deep State's fault! It's the judges' fault! And, always, it's the fault of the foreigners!
At this point you might as well put Trump's image on Mount Rushmore. It would be quite fitting.
Stalin didn’t try to downsize government, idiot. Nice job of projecting from your side.
Much to most of the media is hostile to trump.
This web site and Reason magazine for example.
"STALIN TRIED TO SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT!!!"
"CULTS WANT MORE FREE SPEECH!!!"
"TRUMP CONTROLS THE MEDIA!!!"
Fuck off, Lying Jeffy. You and your lies and propaganda have no power here.
Trump isn't shrinking government because we have a government of laws. Without repealing the laws that authorize executive agencies, they're just going to come back like that rash you got from the only woman who was ever willing to have sex with you. What he's doing is temporarily hobbling federal agencies before refilling those empty chairs with loyalists so he can weaponize the entire executive against his enemies. And you're totally fine with that.
they're just going to come back
So then why all the whining about your shipyard friends?
Cite?
You really don’t understand how much time and effort it takes to build these structures. They don’t just appear overnight. Every single one of these departments has a structure that was built over decades by Washington insiders, created and curated to serve them. Some of the more malignant employees have been there for decades also maintaining the structures. When you remove these employees, reroute the lines of communication, and keep it that way for at least the next four years, possibly more, you’ve taken out what took them decades to build. It cannot just be replaced by the flick of a switch. That is why the Democrats are up in arms about the destruction Trump is doing to their power structures. Even if they get back into power in four years, they will have to spend an inordinate amount of time to reconstruct everything.
This is how we know sarcasmic is just here to troll to protect democrats and government.
It has been pointed out to him many times that this is solely an excuse. Congress can't bind a future congress, so even if congress removes all this spending, power or employees, it can all come back.
Yet he is reliant on this argument, only because dems are out of power, despite it having no actual effect or meaning.
All sarc wants to do is attack conservatives. That's it. His argument is sophomoric yet he continues to state it merely to attack actions actually reducing government power and spending. He doesn't want those things. He wants a narrative only.
That's why I want Trump's cuts to be done with legislation rather than with executive orders which will all be undone by the next Democratic administration. Because I'm protecting government and hate conservatives.
You're fucking retarded.
Does that include the cuts to the shipyard jobs you were whining about before?
No, you wrongly claim this is the only legitimate path because you don't think it can ever happen and your goal here has always been protecting the left. For decades your only response to other people criticizing Dems on spending was to claim Reps are just as bad. Now that they are proving you wrong you are desperate to stop them.
Proving me wrong? Did you see the Republican budget? It increases federal spending you lying retard. Fact is that I'm the only person in these comments who actually wants to cut the government. The rest of you just want a more responsive bureaucracy that King Trump can use against his enemies.
No, idiot, we think the bureaucracy should be following the Constitution and acting as a part of the executive branch, the one run by the President, not as a shadow fourth branch of government.
Whats even more hilarious as that Trumps EOs all have language to direct agencies in a statutory and constitutional defending minimus manner.
In other words limit power for the executive to the clearest and lowest interpretation. A reverse of the expansionary executive sarc claims to want.
It increases federal spending you lying retard.
Show us.
https://reason.com/2025/03/12/the-houses-budget-bill-cuts-earmarks-but-spending-will-be-going-up-anyway/
That’s the C.R. from Congress, dingbat.
So not the budget but instead the CR.
Another lie.
Sarc can't do math. 8B increase to DoD and a 13B cut to discretionary is growth to him.
And he ignores the CR allowing impoubdment to cut eveb more. The very action he claims the wanted a month ago.
So not the budget but instead the CR.
A CR is a budget you moron.
A CR is a budget you moron.
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son.
""Because I'm protecting government""
There's the answer.
Congress can't bind a future congress, so even if congress removes all this spending, power or employees, it can all come back.
Legislation is much harder to undo than executive orders.
It is interesting that you are opposed to cutting government with legislation and defend executive orders which will all be undone by the next Democratic administration.
You don't want cuts to be permanent. You actually want all of these agencies to come back like ML's rash. You're protecting government and Democrats. What a fucking tool.
Have you explained (over steak) to your shipyard pals that you want congress to legislate away their jobs permanently?
Not even fake friends want burnt to shit steak.
"like ML's rash."
You're my rash, Sarckles.
""Legislation is much harder to undo than executive orders.""
Yes. Something Congress critter forget when they enable the executive.
Without reading the grey box, I infer that he has chummed the waters with the "But we need Congress to change the laws, not rule by EO!" trope he's been touting for some weeks.
Even if you AGREE with him on it, he'll still call you names and shitpost you, and just keep right on saying the same shit.
Nobody agrees with me on that, or they wouldn't attack me for saying it.
Man, the projection is just dripping off that comment.
Your (ITL) comment prompted me to unmute Sarc for a moment to see what it is he said that prompted your comment.
Nobody agrees with me on that, or they wouldn't attack me for saying it.
Fortunately, I know how to access old comments (some folks here don't seem to be able to figure it out)...
Medulla Oblongata 1 month ago
Stupid Trade War
No. Trump's EO's are not really allowed to rescind or modify the XO of any Democrat predecessors, but his XOs can be undone immediately without challenge by a successor Democrat.
In this case Sarc is making a somewhat valid point. Rescinding Biden and Obama XOs is just a start. Trump needs to ride herd on Congress to get that shit undone! Oh, wait, a new Congress can just pass the same old law again! (Clearly the hope is that it's harder for Congress to revive a law and/or pass new laws than it is for Pres. to sign an XO).
And on a different subject:
Medulla Oblongata 1 week ago
Say Thank You
If we ignore all the insults, projection, and butt-hurt, I can agree that there's a grain of truth in Sarcs inflationary claims. Borrowing money (aka printing money to buy new T-bills) to hand out $5000 checks will of course be inflationary and a bad idea all around.
I forgot about that. Sorry.
Sarc, that’s a first step in the right direction.
I know how to access old comments
What are you, a loser with no life?
What he's doing is temporarily hobbling federal agencies before refilling those empty chairs with loyalists so he can weaponize the entire executive against his enemies.
Note the discrepancy:
1) There's no evidence this is true but he assert it anyway because (if true) it would damage the right.
2) Even though Dems weaponized government against non-leftists he has never criticized them for it. He ignores anything that could damage the left.
1) Vance said the purpose of DOGE is not to save money or shrink government, but rather to purge the ranks of people loyal to the law and the Constitution and replace them with people loyal to Trump.
2) Hurr durr anyone who says anything about Trump didn't say anything when Democrats did it hurr durr and that makes it ok hurr durr. Fucking retard.
1) Vance said the purpose of DOGE is not to save money or shrink government, but rather to purge the ranks of people loyal to the law and the Constitution and replace them with people loyal to Trump.
Show us this.
But note neither of these comments refutes my assertion. He's trying to distract attention away from my comment because he knows he can't refute it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14348105/jd-vance-doge-trump-administration.html
'The most important thing it's going to do, I don't even think it's the cost savings,' Vance told Sean Hannity in the interview.
'It's making the bureaucracy responsive to elected president,' the vice president continued.
The purpose of DOGE is not to cut spending or cut government. It's to fill the ranks with loyalists. So when you and other say DOGE is making permanent cuts to government, you're lying. No wonder you guys are so hostile to making cuts more permanent with legislation. Fact is you don't want to cut government. You just want Trump to be a king.
Hey, dumbass, making the bureaucracy under and within the executive branch responsive to the elected President, the one the citizens of this country elected to run the executive branch, is not puting loyalists in there. It’s rooting out the assholes who think the unelected bureaucracy is a fourth branch of government.
Tell me again how many branches of government are listed in the Constitution?
Is this where I post saecs comment calling the deep state protectors of the constitution?
The idiot just wants democrats in charge. The last level they have power is the deep state. So now he defends everything deep state.
Sarc seems to think the unelected bureaucracy of the executive branch should be a check on presidential power. He’s either an idiot who has never bothered to read the Constitution, or he’s a malicious shithead whio disregards the Constitution so he can have his beloved Democrats and deep state in power. He’s not even remotely a libertarian. By the way, after this exchange he’s had with all of us (and I know you read my comments, Sarc, so stop lying about muting), I’m going with the malicious shithead.
First, this is what Vance thinks DOGE is going to do in addition to the cost savings --and HE thinks it's more important.
Second, not one word is said about Trump or Trump loyalists or "people loyal to the law and the Constitution'. He's talking about making the bureaucracy responsive to the representatives that people elected rather than to itself, as it is now.
Everything you asserted comes from inside your own head and not from anything anyone said or did.
The job of the executive is to execute and administer laws passed by Congress, which is the people's voice in the government. Even if the laws are dumb. Trump's defenders want him to ignore Congress and do whatever the hell he wants. They want a king.
Sarc, the people vote for the chief executive as well.
'It's making the bureaucracy responsive to elected president,' the vice president continued.
Right, so you lied.
Vance is saying we have to get rid of the Deep Statists who actively work against the elected executive and you lie that this means he is hiring only people willing to violate the constitution. It's the same bullshit you've been saying forever, that eliminating a government weaponized for Dems means creating a government weaponized for Reps.
Somewhat amusingly this framing implicitly claims a non-weaponized government is not even a theoretical possibility, which means you are contradicting yourself since in other contexts you pretend this is what you want. These internal contradictions are one way we can identify you as a propagandist as people with consistent principles don't contradict them.
Non-weaponized government would require eliminating laws which delegate arbitrary power to the executive. Whenever I say those laws should be repealed, you and the other Trump defenders go on the attack. That tells me that you're lying about wanting a non-weaponized government. Like the rest of the Trump defenders you have no principles and only care about who, not what. So for you a Trump-weaponized government is good, and a Democrat-weaponized government is bad. Because you care about who, not what. I'm the only person here who wants to de-weaponize government. The rest of you want government to be a weapon that Trump can use against his enemies.
Non-weaponized government would require eliminating laws which delegate arbitrary power to the executive.
What nonsense. But even if this were true it would not change that what Vance wrote is nothing like what you claimed. You lied and now you want to change the subject to draw attention away from that fact.
I'm the only person here who wants to de-weaponize government.
This is a lie in every possible way. We know you don't want this because you had no objection to Dems weaponizing government, and argue to keep it even now. The people who do want non-weaponized government you criticize. And further your analysis denies that a non-weaponized government can even exist at all.
We know you don't want this because you had no objection to Dems weaponizing government
That's not true at all. I objected to many things that the Biden administration did, and I was a very vocal critic of Obama's policies. The difference is that, unlike you, I believe that Trump and his J6 minions actually broke the law, while you think enforcing the law is lawfare.
and argue to keep it even now.
Yeah, that's what I mean when I say laws giving arbitrary power to the executive need to be repealed. That means I want to keep the government the way it is, because that's what happens when laws are repealed.
You're just lying sack of shit that defends the narrative while having no regard for the truth. Fuck off.
That's not true at all. I objected to many things that the Biden administration did, and I was a very vocal critic of Obama's policies.
Liar. Whenever anyone criticized Obama or Biden you turned it into a criticism of Reps by claiming they are no better. Amusingly you now refer to this tactic as whataboutism and claim it shows people on the right are unprincipled. Why doesn't your use of this tactic prove you unprincipled? [A: Left Wing Privilege - any evidence is strong enough to convict the right while no evidence is strong enough to convict the left]. Even your criticism of whataboutism is entirely dependent on who is doing it which makes your eternal whining that others base their criticisms solely on Team all the more amusing since that describes you more than anyone else.
Yeah, that's what I mean when I say laws giving arbitrary power to the executive need to be repealed.
It doesn't matter what laws say when they aren't followed. The law says people will not be subject to racial or sex based discrimination in education or employment but that is routinely flouted by left wing institutions. Your pretense that passing a simple law can change this is this is absurd. Your assertion this is the only way to address is shows your only interest is in stopping other measures.
""but rather to purge the ranks of people loyal to the law and the Constitution and replace them with people loyal to Trump.""
No where in your link does it say this. Period. Pure projection.
"Without repealing the laws that authorize executive agencies, they're just going to come back like that rash you got from the only woman who was ever willing to have sex with you. What he's doing is temporarily hobbling federal agencies"
Sarcasmic, you fucking retard, are you pulling out your crystal ball again to tell us that you've foreseen the future and congress won't ratify these EO's with legislation so nobody should even fucking try?
It's a lot easier to destroy an agency and then get congress to enshrine it, than to get congress to do it in the first place. You can tell because they have never, never, never done it before.
But hey! Orangemanbad, amirite?
Sarcasmic, you fucking retard, are you pulling out your crystal ball again to tell us that you've foreseen the future and congress won't ratify these EO's with legislation so nobody should even fucking try?
I've seen nothing that would indicate that the Republican majority in Congress wants to do that, and that's because Republicans only want to cut government when Democrats are in charge.
So far all I've seen is that they plan to increase federal spending.
I do find it interesting that both you and Jesse, the most outspoken Trump defenders, attack anyone who wants to codify Trump's cuts into law. You say that anyone who wants to cut government legislatively is protecting government and Democrats, knowing that all his executive orders will be undone by the next Democratic administration. You're both literally accusing others of what you are doing while you are doing it. Must be a day that ends in 'y'.
"I've seen nothing that would indicate that the Republican majority in Congress wants to do that"
Six weeks, Sarckles. And at least a dozen congressmen have started working on bills to do just that.
I'm interested where you're orangemanbad will take you once congress starts enshrining these EOs.
I'll believe it when I see it. I'm certainly not taking your word for it. Heck, I wouldn't trust you to tell me the time.
i'LL bELeiVe iT wHeN i sEe iT
Six weeks Sarcasmic, still in the middle of the audit and they don't have them passed and ratified yet. What monsters.
You just so incredibly stupid and dishonest. Frankly its sociopathic.
"STALIN TRIED TO SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT!!!"
Trump is shrinking the parts of government he doesn't like and expanding the parts of government that he does like (military, border patrol, law enforcement).
"CULTS WANT MORE FREE SPEECH!!!"
Trump's cult selectively defines 'free speech' to be 'speech that we approve of'. So MAGA speech is great. But speech supporting Hamas is "supporting terrorism" and no longer 'free speech'. Also, speech supporting a right to an abortion. That is 'aiding and abetting a crime', right?
"TRUMP CONTROLS THE MEDIA!!!"
The only media you and your team will read and believe is Trump-aligned media.
Huge part of defining a cult is isolationism from the outside world and especially family.
Only 1 party in this country goes on national news and talk shows to suggest that dems should cut off family and friends who voted for trump. Dems sit in a much more protected bubble from outside thought than Repubs
What do you call someone who thinks Trump is more trustworthy than everyone else, and who only gets their news from Trump-friendly and Trump-aligned media?
I think Trump is a bloviating idiot and wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. But as President, I believe he 100% has the authority to grant or deny security clearances at his whim.
What do you call someone who thinks Trump is more trustworthy than everyone else, and who only gets their news from Trump-friendly and Trump-aligned media?
A figment of your diseased imagination.
It is impossible to 'only get your news from Trump-friendly and Trump-aligned media' because WE don't put up blocks to free speech and YOU idiots are forever screeching in 'our' spaces about how you're not allowed to screech in our spaces.
And no one finds Trump "more trustworthy than anyone else".
We find him more trustworthy than you and your fellow leftists. Interestingly, that seems to be the majority position lately.
Sailor is 100% correct on that. But I guess you would rather talk about Trump.
speech supporting Hamas is "supporting terrorism"
You're aware that Hamas is a literal terrorist group?
8 USC 1227: Deportable aliens
(4) Security and related grounds
(A) In general
Any alien who has engaged, is engaged, or at any time after admission engages in-
(ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, or
(iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is deportable.
(B) Terrorist activities
Any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable.
8 USC 1182: Inadmissible aliens
Terrorist activities
(i) In general
Any alien who-
...
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
Supporting Hamas is literally supporting a terrorist organization. "Free Palestine" is protest speech, "Hurray for Hamas" while harassing jews on campus is supporting a terrorist organization.
"support a terrorist organization" has a legal meaning, and it's not making posts on Facederp. It's providing material support in the form of things like money and weapons. Not talk. But you know this. You're just defending Trump's attack on the 1A, and it's ok because Democrats did it first.
Dumbass, MO literally posted the law and gave you the information on a silver platter. You still refuse to get it because you have the worst case of TDS I’ve seen here on Reason, even including Sullum and Boehm.
“making posts on Facederp”
Sarc just admitted he’s completely ignorant of the topic being discussed.
How old is sarc if he thinks Facebook is the only platform still?
""It's providing material support in the form of things like money and weapons. Not talk""
Does kidnapping charges require more than just talk?
"Trump is shrinking the parts of government he doesn't like and expanding the parts of government that he does like (military, border patrol, law enforcement)."
Exactly as he campaigned and was elected to do.
Parts actually responsibilities of government too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
"Trump is shrinking the parts of government he doesn't like and expanding the parts of government that he does like (military, border patrol, law enforcement).",/i>
OH NO!!!!
And coincidentally, like USAID and the Dept. of Education, they're parts of government libertarians don't like either. If you weren't a Nazi you would have realized this.
"Trump's cult selectively defines 'free speech' to be 'speech that we approve of'. So MAGA speech is great."
Give us an example of bad MAGA speech, Lying Jeffy. What do they sELecTiVeLY cHoOsE and ApProVe that you disagree with? You guys were pretty big on censoring absolute truths like the jab doesn't stop transmission, and that the virus didn't come from a Chinese farmer's market, and that there was something stinky about the extra 20 million votes Joe Fucking Biden of all people got.
Are MAGA doing the same? Give us an example, you lying, evil fuck.
"But speech supporting Hamas is "supporting terrorism" and no longer 'free speech'.
Don't peddle your antisemitic lies here you Nazi fuck. Attacking and burning Jewish shops in New York isn't "speech". Physically attacking Jews on the streets for being Jewish isn't speech. Purposefully fomenting violent riots against Jews isn't speech.
And to think that you of all people have tried to infer Trump was Hitler in the past.
The only media you and your team will read and believe is Trump-aligned media.
The only media you and your team will read and believe is Democrat/USAID bribed party organs, which is why you're so often caught in a lie.
These 6 corporations control 90% of the media outlets in America. The illusion of choice and objectivity
https://techstartups.com/2020/09/18/6-corporations-control-90-media-america-illusion-choice-objectivity-2020/
Well kudos to them for being able to manipulate the public into hating each other.
But speech supporting Hamas is "supporting terrorism"
Correct. Next question?
LOL
Nothing in this post addresses what you are responding to.
Chaff and redirect. After lying it's the second most important part of Chemjeff's job.
LOL, the only thing missing from this unhinged rant is a complaint about talk radio.
A 'right-wing media bubble'?
You mean CNN, MSNBC, CBS,ABC,NBC, Facebook, Google, Youtube, Tiktok, Instagram, FOX, Disney, MGM, Paramount, Universal etcetera ad infinitum?
Because FOXnews, Rumble, OAN and gab couldn't blow a bubble if they tried.
And the only thing different about twitter is now they let the right wing nutjobs rant as much as the left wing nutjobs.
There is no 'right wing media bubble because the left will not allow a single space to exist without their contamination.
It's why this whole thing can only end in bloodshed
“I’ve also read the Mueller report… I’m not going to get into a debate about it.”
That's because there's nothing to debate, you commie faggot, as the Mueller report didn't prove collusion, either.
This is so fantastically fucking retarded that only a Democrat could have thought it.
"Their clearances are revoked. The end. Anyone who continues sharing classified information with them will be prosecuted, and they will be prosecuted for receiving it. You don't get a say in this. Stop wasting my fucking time. We're done here."
“I don't think Newsom's shtick will play well—cities in his state have descended into crime and disorder;”
LIES!
Yup. As theft was legalized, crime went down.
Who knew the left was ran by Lord Vertinari? But the thieves guild did have a quota. I think they missed that part.
A majority of Americans believe President Donald Trump is being too 'erratic' in his moves...
They're being told to think that, that's for sure.
Does "erratic" mean challenging the WEF-DNC-establishment blob state?
Trump is suddenly blowing it on the speech in a big way...
Like that wasn't inevitable.
Once he jumps on this bandwagon, we're all screwed, because there's nowhere left to run.
Lol. Someone acknowledges Trump as our last chance for basic liberties?
And a lifelong Democrat to boot!
I need sarc to weight in on this to see if his theory if "he cooperated and gave them back" still applies.
New emails show Biden would send sensitive and classified material often to his personal unsecured mail server as VP.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/biden-pseudonym-emails-put-sensitive-information-risk-hackers
Pfff. So Joe opted for convenience, what's the problem???
He should have just set up a server in his basement.
But you know how often those require deep cleaning, right?
A bit of bleach helps.
Like with a cloth or something?
Or a hammer.
Whatever the voices in your head say. I know better than to argue with them.
So you're now denying that you made the "he cooperated" argument sarc? You can see why people don't respect you, no?
He can't. H
His only principle is Trump bad, democrats good. And his pathalogical lying.
He even knows i have the link lol.
I said what I said at the time with the information that was available at the time. And you still completely and totally ignored my point which was that Trump said fuck you I do what I want when people tried to retrieve the documents, and that's what got him into trouble. It wasn't the act of taking the classified material home. It was his fuck you when he was told to return the stuff. Which you of course defended because you don't think King Trump is subject to the law or the Constitution.
So, as always, you're accusing me of doing what you are doing while you are doing it. In this case your only principle is Trump good, democrats bad, and you promote your principle with pathological lying.
No one ignored your points, they were all responded to repeatedly, by me and others.
I said what I said at the time with the information that was available at the time.
It's you who have never addressed the fact that joe had documents stemming from his time as VP and senator (which was information available at the time).
Facts changed!
Facts-changed is his go-to for every situation where his contradictions are so blatant that even he can't defend them anymore. Funny how often he has had to use it in the last 2 years or so...
Narrator: no facts changed. Sarc finally realized what a piece of shit he and his argument were.
Lol. You never changed your stance until now because you are such a big lying hypocrite even you realized it.
What a lying shit weasel.
Facts changed!
Can he even claim to have principles when they change so often depending on his argument?
Sarc has so many principles he can pick and choose which ones suit him at the moment.
See, this is why the lot of you are bad faith tribalist trolls. It is quite evident that you all are going to object to everything sarcasmic and I say no matter what it is. Even if we change our minds and agree with you, you are going to condemn that too. It is because, I believe, because you object to who we are as people, not what we say or believe. It is as Trump said during his speech: we could come up with a cure for cancer and you would still find a way to condemn it.
Well yeah, they judge everything based upon who, not what. They determine right and wrong based upon the person, not what the person did. Two people, a Trump supporter and a person with a brain, can say or do the exact same thing, and 100% of the time these clowns will defend the Trump supporter and condemn the person with a brain.
You have got to have the worst case of TDS I’ve ever seen.
object to everything sarcasmic and I say no matter what it is
Sarcasmic accidentally makes a good point, once every 6 months or so. He's striving for broken clock status.
Even if we change our minds and agree with you
Is sarc saying he changed his mind about Joe's garage documents? If so, this would be the first time. That moment when Oceania changed to war with East Asia?
"It is quite evident that you all are going to object to everything sarcasmic and I say no matter what it is.
There are at least fifty people here today telling you and Sarckles to go fuck yourselves, but they are all the trolls and not you two clowns.
I wasn’t making an argument here I was mocking sarc’s repeated behavior.
An example of an argument would be: the judicial branch has no authority over who the president gives or rescinds security clearances.
Do you agree or disagree with that argument?
“Even if we change our minds and agree with you”
That’s the whole point. He won’t admit he changed his mind and agrees with us. He says facts changed and we were still wrong.
“It is because, I believe, because you object to who we are as people, not what we say or believe”
This is an anonymous comment section. My entire basis of who you are is what you say here.
And until today after my post was made has he ever admitted his prior view changed lol.
Jeffsarc is the most retarded shit weasel here.
That’s the whole point. He won’t admit he changed his mind and agrees with us. He says facts changed and we were still wrong.
What's the substantive difference? You are demanding complete subservience, not mere agreement.
“complete subservience”
So dishonest.
It's true. You won't accept mere agreement. You will only accept complete submission.
Where did sarc state his agreement, jeff? All he has done so far is lie about his prior statements.
, this is why the lot of you are bad faith tribalist trolls. It is quite evident that you all are going to object to everything sarcasmic and I say no matter what it is.
Is this wrong? If so it's pretty amusing since it describes no one better than the jeffsarcs. But self awareness was never their strong suit
Isn't Jeff objecting to me citing security clearances just above? They love their projections.
Apparently he agrees that the judge is wrong and was just trolling.
Jesus man wtf happened to you? I used to actually like your take on things but over the past few years you have turned into an insufferable pussy ass hypocritical bitch. I don’t get it.
But democrats did it first.
The irs, like all gov employees, are Marxists and therefor sub human toddlers. They will act as incompetent as possible and say see this is what happens when you fire beurocrats.
The US Federal Trade Commission is moving ahead with a sprawling antitrust probe of Microsoft Corp...
They're going to uncouple Edge from Windows.
Thank fuck for that. We all know the IRS is too incompetent to download chrome on their own.
They don’t even have computers!
They're using COBOL which literally doesn't allow for correct dates. Or something.
Is it Y2K again?
Everything is 150 years old in COBOL. It's the default!!!!
Will anyone notice?
Just finished building my last PC for/with my last broodling. Despite my encouragement, all the builds for all the broodlings have been Windows computers (Steam and XBox are pretty strong prime movers). Before his new computer has completed the first boot cycle, his older siblings are hovering over him debating as to whether he needs to download Opera or Chrome first.
It's kind of astounding how Microsoft continues to orally shotgun fuck themselves when it comes to web browsers.
No Brave?
Yeah, I give them the 'like-I'm-five' cybersecurity lectures "Always brush your teeth, never use public wifi, and stay away from warez they're full of viruses."
I was saying more from their perspective. These are kids who, when you ask them to spell 'log' and use it into a sentence reply, "I log in to my iPad to do my homework." and their first thought about Windows is "Edge is a dumpster fire."
Edge, like Internet Extorter before it, sucks. It’s buggy, full of ads you can’t disable, and just overall sucks. I’ve been more of a Firefox fan over the years.
Just remember, if Bill Gates does this to a web browser, what will he fuck up in the real world?
I'm not sure Bill Gates has been involved with MS web browsers since IE4.0
Anything before IE4.0 sucked too. Even in those days, my personal go-to was Netscape.
And here I am still using Firefox.
Chrome was such a memory suck/disk space suck for so long that I refuse to use it at home. Opera never felt as good to me.
The memory suck was early Javascript engines, it's gotten better which is/was why everyone has adopted it as the "base layer".
I use Brave primarily and FF as my "never single-source" alternative and, as I indicated to Don't get eliminated above, the issue is more that even relatively young, disinterested, naive, denizens of the web know, or are coached, "Don't use Edge."
Yes, reflexively rejecting the use of Edge is ingrained in public consciousness.
The media has switched from denying there is fraud to saying there is fraud and it's a good thing as it creates jobs.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/12/report-defends-fraudulent-obamacare-spending-because-it-creates-jobs/
Yes, the "OK, it's happening, but it's a good thing" stage.
We're at the odd "Its not happening and it's good that it's happening" stage.
Kind of interesting how they can get old boomer women to believe two diametrically opposed ideas at once.
That's what box wine can do for you.
The media has switched from denying there is fraud to saying there is fraud and it's a good thing as it creates jobs.
This, once again, is at the heart of modern liberal/Austrian economics: the real issue with corruption isn't the money taken. The money taken isn't good but it's a fractional loss compared to the trickle down costs imposed on the private sector and the feedback loops it creates. It creates handfuls of jobs at a definitive loss, otherwise there wouldn't be corruption and fraud, when it would create relatively dozens of far more productive jobs otherwise.
This is why the left's standard criticism of American healthcare - that its so expensive - is so amusing. Their goal is to make it expensive!
Leftist timeline:
1. American healthcare is too expensive!
2. Pass Obamacare which costs approaching a trillion dollars.
3. American healthcare is too expensive!
What a pack of fools.
If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's "free".
Liz. I know you read the comments. Stop defending Khalil. 3rd day in a row.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1899348525298729368.html
There is no right to allow people who support and promote global and domestic terrorism to remain in a visitor status. Green Cards are a visitor status.
Incitement to racial violence and leading violent protests are just the free speech of a passionate cultural minority, and a student visa affords them the rights of a citizen and protects them from expulsion.
Did I get it right, Lying Jeffy?
Do you have any evidence that denying the rights of other students to their education is a violation of a student visa? Hmmm?
Everything in that thread is SPEECH. Not violent acts.
"Incitement" has a very specific legal definition, it does not mean merely "saying bad words that you don't like".
If you can show that he committed an act of violence, then that is a crime and for that he should be punished.
Can you?
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
Khalil was under investigation by university officials for involvement in the university's Apartheid Divest group and allegedly helping organize a march that reportedly "glorified the attacks on October 7".
But setting that aside, his removal procedures were initiated under section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits deportation of lawful residents if the Secretary of State believes that their presence presents a risk of "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences".
The Sec. State is by law given the authority to make that determination.
8 USC 1227: Deportable aliens
An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.
He knew that. He's paid to lie.
Yeah, I don't support vague laws that give the government wide discretionary power to punish people for otherwise protected speech/activity. As I said, it may be that the government CAN punish him just for his speech, but I don't think it should.
So are you saying that government should not follow the law?
Are you saying that the law is "vague"? It looks crystal clear to me. It says "support a terrorist organization", and Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by almost every country in the world.
Neat how suddenly your the one who gets to pick and choose which laws you'll follow, again.
"potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences"
Can you provide specific, concrete meaning to this phrase? No I don't think you can. The statute by design seems to be intended to bestow a great deal of discretionary authority to the Secretary of State. Nice to know that you support arbitrary government diktats to kick out the 'undesirables'.
Why would you desire to have someone actively being part of a terrorist organization within your country, Jeffy?
8 USC 1182: Inadmissible aliens
(iv) Exception for close family members
The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General's discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.
Can you provide specific, concrete meaning to this phrase? No I don't think you can. The statute by design seems to be intended to bestow a great deal of discretionary authority to the Attorney General. Nice to know that you support arbitrary government diktats to let in anyone he feels like by ignoring the law as written.
Yeah I don't like vague laws that grant vast amounts of discretionary authority to the executive even when I happen to like the result. So no I don't approve of the manner in which these results were arrived at. Do you have any more lame gotchas?
IT'S NOT FUCKING VAGUE YOU LYING FUCK. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE!
Seriously, do you think people can't read what MO just copypasted? They can only read your comment?
You're either a lunatic or a sociopath, regardless of how much they pay you to post here.
So no executive officeholder should have any discretion in the administration of any and all laws? How about prosecutorial discretion? Do cops and AGs/DAs have to prosecute for every violation they become aware of or can they ignore the clear words of the law when they want to? Sentencing discretion? Must judges adhere to strict formulaic rules when passing judgement after the jury makes their decisions? Can juries ignore laws they think are being misapplied (nullification)?
Is there "good" discretion that you will allow?
How would it work for granting something like Temporary protected status for immigrants? Would there be some sort of objective formula that details the math involved and a certain number of people from Country X automatically get TPS when criteria are met, and it expires automatically when the closing criteria are met? Do we do it first-come first served or what?
ML, I'm pretty sure the issue is the discretion involved.
"An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States"
and similarly
"the Attorney General may, in the Attorney General's discretion, waive the application of clause "
Provide the authorization for executive discretion, which can basically be arbitrary. I can see that we could readily get into the situation were the authority that is by statute vested in the executive where some judge gets to come along after the fact and say "your reason is not good enough".
But ANY discretion allowed can be reduced to "because I said so". Jeff seems to want a world without discretion, but zero-tolerance is probably worse than "because I said so" in the implementation.
"Because I said so" gets people booted from office in the next election if enough people think the decision was made incorrectly. There is no respite from zero-tolerance.
Of course, then we come to the judicial branch. Judges impose their interpretation of laws, at their complete discretion at least until appeals occur. And we've seen any number of judges over the years who think that they know better than the executive only to find the judges on SCOTUS--who get the last laugh--unanimously overrule the judicial diktats. We also end up with bullshit like "bees are fish" rulings because some judge agrees with the cause and twists the words in the law until he can read it the way he wants to.
Vague does not mean arbitrary. The law is not vague, Lying Jeffy's problem is his tribe lost and he doesn't like the people making the decision.
Medulla, thank you for recognizing that for me one big issue is the arbitrary discretion afforded to the executive.
I think the degree of executive discretion should be very limited. I don't want a world where Congress micromanages every single detail, but I also don't want a world in which Congress delegates away the entire farm. If there has to be executive branch discretion, it should be very very limited. Because if it is not, then we are basically admitting that we have an emperor and not a president.
For things like TPS: first, I don't really like TPS because I think migration should be much easier anyway, so programs like TPS don't even need to exist in the first place. But in the absence of that, there is no reason why Congress can't pass a law specifying precisely who can be granted TPS status in specific situations, without leaving it up to the whims of the executive to decide who can get it and who can have it revoked on a moment's notice. I will be the first to agree that TPS status is a bit of a joke, as it tends to be the case that the status keeps getting renewed indefinitely even long after the emergency has passed. If Congress were to pass a law along the lines of, say, "okay, your country had a terrible natural disaster, you can come here for 5 years while you get your shit together, and then you have to go back", then that at least is more in line with the original intent of the idea, and not just a backdoor method for permanent resident status. And then after 5 years Congress can decide what to do next, whether to continue to extend it or not. But at least it would be up to a vote of the people, and not just the whims of one man.
Hey ML, maybe you should stop your gaslighting and read what others are saying, like Medulla. Instead of trying to gaslight everyone into claiming that I am saying something that I am not, you could actually engage me in the discussion that I am actually having. Would that be asking too much?
My thought is if they don't trust an employee with a computer, we shouldn't trust them with our taxes, and they SHOULD be fired.
(second thought; how did all those guys 'work' from home without a computer?)
Smoke signals probably.
I suspected Liz Warren had her fingers in the IRS.
Well, 1/64th of her fingers.
second thought; how did all those guys 'work' from home without a computer?
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
If they don't have computers there will be no computerized evidence of their shenanigans (see Lois Lerner, et al.).
Being a foreigner is a "deportable offense" if we decide we don't want you here anymore. Foreigners visiting here have no right to stay.
"A majority of Americans believe President Donald Trump is being too 'erratic' in his moves to shake up the U.S. economy, as his imposition of tariffs against some of the nation's top trading partners hammers stock markets," finds a new Reuters/Ipsos poll.
Ummm... did yesterday's stock market response not happen? This talking point is not only stale but already broken.
How we doing for the month?
I'm doing just fine. Are you freaking out because the media said tariffs bad? Hoping you are having an emotional rage sell off.
No, deflect more though from your one day bs metric. I did just get my increase of steel yestreday. 12 cents more a pound. Winning!
Oh and just cause I'm tired of your bullshit arguements, my steel is domestical sourced. I shouldn't need to justify my purchases to you or any asshole in waahington, though. So find another talking point to justify unconstitutional taxation and how it actually effects the market.
Lol. I'm not deflecting shit retard.
I'm saying yours and medias histrionic over a drop is fucking hilarious. And that as soon as the drop reversed you deny or deflect like a good lemmings.
Fucking hilarious really.
You still don't understand my talking points. Hilarious too. All those real numbers I used just confused you. So you're now resorting to "well I'm not doing X, so nobody is" argument. You don't have to be a fucking thief to support theft retard. China is still stealing whether you buy from them or not. And you support it in every fucking thread.
You're just as ignorant as the other bumper sticker economists here.
Your the one who stated one day of trading news means something when over the last 30 days we have seen declines.
And conveniently again you use just China to justify, EU, Canada, Mexico tariffs. So if its just about China theft how do you square those?
I have been blinded by the lower gasoline prices, and can't see the tariffs.
I refuse to listen to people who ignore the rest of the economy and just set their hair on fire over a single item.
Those tariffs caused 25% inflation! Wait. Damn you reality!
SAGN and others will never change their religious beliefs even in the face of reality.
"Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?"
According to the commenters, yes
But what if I just jerk off on the government and feel bad about it afterwards?
If the government was drunk they shouldn't be surprised if they're raped.
FYI, for those new to the Adventures of Chemjeff:
Lying Jeffy said that a twelve-year-old girl who was gang raped by illegal migrants shouldn't have been drinking.
He also said the penalties shouldn't be as harsh for the ones who only ejaculated on her instead of in her, and that feeling sorry about raping her later should be mitigating.
When I call Jeff evil, I'm not exaggerating.
Let's discuss what actually happened, not Fascist ML's version of it.
This was a case where a bunch of migrants gang-raped a teenager. It was a horrible crime. But, the usual bunch of bigoted xenophobic jackasses around here wanted to punish the migrants more severely, without any consideration of individualized standards of justice, just because they were foreigners. And I objected to that. Everyone who commits a crime should be punished for that person's role in the crime, and not punished collectively based on what other people did. And that is what people like ML and Jesse object to. They want collective punishment of migrants whenever they commit a crime.
Lying Jeffy said that a twelve-year-old girl who was gang raped by illegal migrants shouldn't have been drinking.
I don't think she was 12 years old, I think she was older. Regardless, my point here was that her witness testimony on the stand would rightly be considered less reliable because she had been drinking because alcohol has a well-known effect of affecting people's memories. Her drinking made her a less credible witness in court. That was my very noncontroversial point, which ML decided to twist into victim-blaming.
He also said the penalties shouldn't be as harsh for the ones who only ejaculated on her instead of in her,
Again I think people should e punished for the crimes that they actually commit, and should not be punished for crimes that they didn't commit. ML disagrees, he wants group collective punishment.
feeling sorry about raping her later should be mitigating.
It is common practice in courts for judges to impose lighter sentences if the judge believes that the perpetrator is genuinely remorseful. In fact this happened quite often with the Jan. 6 trials, quite a few defendants got lesser sentences because they professed genuine remorse. Presumably ML supports this type of judicial discretion when applied to his allies, but objects to it when applied to people he doesn't like. Typical of ML's fascist unprincipled behavior.
Jeff. I'll give you a chance to recant this post because I'm going to repost the entire thing here.
I would have done it already, but I'm on my phone right now.
https://reason.com/2024/06/25/americas-mayors-say-the-heartland-needs-immigrants/?comments=true#comment-10616918
https://reason.com/2024/06/27/double-haters/?comments=true#comment-10619535
lol, big talk coming from you. This is your standard MO: lie about me, get caught, then try to gaslight people into thinking you didn't lie.
I'm not going to recant anything, what I said above is the same content as what I wrote previously, and you are just being your usual slimy self.
chemjeff radical individualist 9 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You want to get graphic? Fine.
What about the semen that is found on the woman's shirt? Is that the result of rape? Or is that the result of some guy jacking off while watching? That's gross and possibly illegal but not the same as rape. Should this guy be punished the same as a rapist?
What about the semen from the guy who regretted it and showed remorse, and the semen from the guy who didn't? Should they get the same punishment? And let's keep in mind that they are minors with ethical codes that are not fully developed. That is the whole reason why we don't try minors as adults for the crimes that they commit.
Remember, this is in response to this:
The horrific assault took place in 2020, and involved multiple groups of migrant men independently attacking a 14-year-old girl in Hamburg’s Stadtpark over the course of one night.
A total of 11 men were initially charged, but two were acquitted quickly due to a lack of DNA evidence. The sperm of nine of the men, however, had been successfully recovered from the girl’s body.
Five of the men were in possession of German passports, while the remainder were not citizens of Germany. Among those charged, none were of German heritage. The rapists were identified as a Pole, an Egyptian, a Libyan, a Kuwaiti, an Iranian, an Armenian, an Afghan, a Syrian, and a Montenegrin. The men had a team of 20 defense attorneys arguing their innocence.
Videos of the first and third rapes had been recorded and shared by the assailants to contacts through WhatsApp, but the videos were deleted before the case could be heard in court. Witnesses who did see the footage before its deletion did testify that it depicted clear sexual assault, with one noting that the girl had been holding her hands over her head in a protective position.
When I say Jeff is evil, I'm not exaggerating.
One of Jeffy’s more infamous comments. This is certifiable Hall of Shame material.
If you make one you should have your handle link to it.
"tHiS iS UR sTaNdArd mO, LiE abOut mE"
Jeff, you were really hoping I'd forget when you got all bold just now, huh?
https://reason.com/2024/06/24/byo-a-c/?comments=true#comment-10615352
Mother's Lament (June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly) 9 months ago
Maybe she accidentally got their cum in her ass from using the same toilet seat, right?
You're such a monster.
chemjeff radical individualist 9 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
You want to get graphic? Fine.
What about the semen that is found on the woman's shirt? Is that the result of rape? Or is that the result of some guy jacking off while watching? That's gross and possibly illegal but not the same as rape. Should this guy be punished the same as a rapist?
What about the semen from the guy who regretted it and showed remorse, and the semen from the guy who didn't? Should they get the same punishment? And let's keep in mind that they are minors with ethical codes that are not fully developed. That is the whole reason why we don't try minors as adults for the crimes that they commit.
But you don't really give a shit about the details of any of this evidence, do you? Standards of justice that ought to apply to native-born citizens don't apply to those migrants, because "everybody knows" they are just violent thugs anyway. Any bit of evidence that connects any one of them to the crime is good enough to justify locking them up and throwing away the key no matter how tenuous, or no matter whatever exculpatory evidence may be presented.
The real monsters here, besides the rapists, are people like you, who cannot see beyond their migrant status and will use any pretext whatsoever to denounce the lot of them as violent thugs and dangers to civil society. This is the mentality that created the barbarism of the Jim Crow South, when all-white juries would routinely sentence black defendants to excessive punishments, despite any exculpatory evidence whatsoever, because "everybody knows" that those black men are violent thugs anyway.
Mother's Lament (June is Banana Republic Month, celebrate responsibly) 9 months ago
Are you possessed? And is it retarded?
"What about the semen that is found on the woman’s shirt? Is that the result of rape? Or is that the result of some guy jacking off while watching? That’s gross and possibly illegal but not the same as rape. Should this guy be punished the same as a rapist?
WHAT THE FUCK?! Seriously, what the fuck, Jeff?
Jerking off on a girl without consent is absolutely 1000% rape. 10000% if it's being done while she's being assaulted by others. This is demonic.
"What about the semen from the guy who regretted it and showed remorse, and the semen from the guy who didn’t? Should they get the same punishment?"
YES!!! What the absolute fuck does rEgReT after the fact have to do with it you inhuman fucking garbage?
You're a moral black hole.
Diarrheality 9 months ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Just beyond the pale. Mother's Lament is right; you are a monster.
I'm not going to give in to your emotional blackmail. Isn't that what you all claim that leftists do? And yet here you are doing the same thing.
I stand by my statements - individuals charged with a crime deserve an individualized approach to justice. They should not be punished collectively, they should be punished according to the crime that each individual was actually proven to have committed.
You have no response to that, all you have is sputtering outrage and emotional appeals.
I favor a rational, dispassionate, evidence-based approach to law and justice. You evidently favor emotional appeals and OMG OUTRAGE as the standard for justice. Oh, and it just so happens that they were all migrants so that really gins up the outrage meter, doesn't it?
Why don't you tell all of us, why should someone who participated in a rape but did not penetrate, receive the exact same punishment as a participant who did? They should both be punished, but why should they be punished exactly the same?
Also, why don't you tell us why using genuine remorse as a standard for leniency in sentencing should apply for Jan. 6 defendants but should not apply to immigrants convicted of crimes.
I don't normally advocate for suicide, but in Cartman's case I'm willing to make an exception.
Jeff? You should kill yourself. I'm even willing to give you advice on how to make it painless and a guaranteed success.
Buy a replacement wooden shovel handle. You want large diameter hardwood. Get a saw and cut yourself a pair of one foot long sections. Acquire some very long heavy duty zip ties. I'm talking the really large, 3/8's inch wide ones that are like 36 inches long.
Place the zip tie around your neck and get it just barely started. You need some slack at this point. Take your two sections of wooden doweling and insert them at the front of the zip tie, so in front of your face, and then lay the top end down towards your back, one over each shoulder, so that you end up with the point of a V of dowels in front of your neck, with the bottom of the dowels below the zip tie, and the tops of them above it and slightly behind you, with the two dowels at right angles to your collar bones.
Start tightening the zip tie until it's kinda snug, but you can still move things around. What you're aiming for is the mechanical emulation of what's called a "triangle choke" in martial arts. The goal is that as you continue tightening the zip tie, the dowels will press into your neck and cut off the flow of blood through your carotid arteries. Once you have dowels positioned properly you'll be able to tell, because as you tighten this up until it's nearly snug, you'll be able to feel your pulse against the dowels on both sides of your neck.
After you have things positioned correctly, lightly support the dowels to maintain their location with your off hand, and use your dominant hand to fully tighten the zip tie to the point where you no longer feel your pulse, and no more. The dowels form a bit of a bridge to keep the zip tie off of your windpipe, so you don't get the "lack of air" choking and panic sensation, and after no more than fifteen seconds (and realistically, more like five) you will pass out painlessly, and ten minutes later you will have achieved permanent brain death.
This has been a public service announcement.
“But, the usual bunch of bigoted xenophobic jackasses around here wanted to punish the migrants more severely, without any consideration of individualized standards of justice, just because they were foreigners.”
I don’t remember this happening.
It didn't. Nobody ever said citizens should be held to a lower standard or recieve the same punishment. Usual Jeff lying. Threads posted above.
It was actually the opposite. Jeff demanded a lower standard of behavior be acceptable for the illegal rape gang.
That is false. I didn't demand a lower standard of behavior. I demanded that individuals be punished for what they *actually did*, and not punished collectively for the worst actions of a few.
That’s a twisted, disgusting thought process. Just sickening.
You think the girl’s trauma is lessened because some of the men may have “just ejaculated” on her? While she was laying there naked surrounded by assailants?
Spend some time in a rape crisis center, fool.
This is Jeffy’s world. There’s a reason most of us oppose him here.
“Spend some time in a rape crisis center, fool.”
I can appreciate the sentiment, however Lying Jeffy is a psychopath, so this exercise wouldn’t provide him with any empathy. It would more likely provide further trauma to the victims.
No I don't think the girl's trauma is lessened by any of that. But a court of law is not a therapy session. The girl should receive therapy, and the perpetrators should receive justice - actual individualized standards of justice, not group collective judgment based on emotional outrage generated by the sensational nature of the crime.
See Was it something I said?? He thinks the participants of an hours long gang rape of a 14 year old that didn't actually ejaculate inside of her should not be judged as part of the group.
"There I was, walking down the street, when a bunch of other dudes had ripped the clothes off some chick and had her tied to the lamppost, and it just turned me on so much that I whipped it out and rubbed one out on her face. I'm so glad I'm not a rapist."
-- This sickest fuck Lying Jeffy
There seriously needs to be a Chemjeff Hall of Shame somewhere that includes this and the infamous bears-in-trunks episode.
Bears in trunks was a good analogy!!
What about shooting trespassers?
If I get bored one of these days I'll create a hall of fame with links and post.
We really need it so we can reference the Hall of Shame when Jeffy lies yet again. He has so many greatest misses here.
Or Jesse, whoever ends up doing it.
Don’t get eliminated 3 seconds ago
If you make one you should have your handle link to it.
Ahem. You have to say sorry, not just feel bad.
And the government needs to be drunk.
Virtue signaled!
Are you referring to all your posts about the "can't pick your own gender on gov forms" story?
Hey Lying Jeffy, does the president have the authority to revoke the security clearance of a law firm?
Hey Troll Mac, why don't you fuck off? You're a pest asking a bad-faith question.
That’s not bad faith in the least. It’s highly pertinent to the assertion you made earlier. Why don’t you answer it, dingbat?
No, it’s a simple question directly related to Jesse’s post that you responded to.
You responded to MY post with a bad-faith trolling question.
The moment you actually respond to what I wrote in a good-faith manner, then I will answer your question.
But I'm about 99% sure you won't, because you are a bad faith troll.
But hey, prove me wrong!
Translation: "Yes, but I don't want to say so."
Actual translation: I am not going to reward Troll Mac's bad faith trolling.
Actual Actual translation: "I spew bullshit, and then whine and cry when called out on it."
Actual Actual Actual translation: I'm not paid to acknowledge that.
Any point jeffsarc doesn't want to address is bad faith.
Yep. He knows I caught him doing what he constantly accuses everyone else of doing, responding to an issue based on his tribe.
No, that’s not a virtue signal. That’s just plain mockery of you and the shit you’ve spewed here.
So you send up a strawman. Pathetic, Jeffy.
Cite?
Notice the bit and switch here. Khalil is a member of a terrorist organization committed to ending Western Civilization. Jeffey pretends this is exactly the same as saying government wastes money because doing so allows him to express his hatred of non-leftists.
It is your team that is doing the bait-and-switch. You want to pretend to be on the side of 'free speech', but since you aren't committed to free speech on a principled level, instead of adhering to a principled position and defending free speech rights even of people you disagree with, you redefine their speech to be 'terrorist support' so as to justify punishing them for their speech.
It is your team which has the glaring double-standard on speech.
Joining a terrorist organization isn't "speech". Regardless I'm fine with the difference between us being that I want to keep terrorists out of America and that enrages you.
Which terrorist organization is Khalil supposedly a member of?
Thought experiment - if the US govt has officially declared Hamas a terrorist organization (legitimately since they've murdered Americans), and Khalil (plus many college student groups, et al) openly support that organization - can the US govt proscute them?
I'm interested in your take as a True Libertarian!!
Is this hypothetical support in terms of only speech? Then no, it's protected speech. I think JD Vance just got finished scolding Europeans for punishing citizens who expressed speech that their leaders didn't like, even if they found the speech distasteful.
So that is what I think the government SHOULD do. It may very well be that the government CAN prosecute this speech under vague anti-terrorism laws. But I don't think it should do so.
Ok, What about material support?
Well, wait. Do you agree or disagree with what I wrote above, and why/why not?
My view is purely verbal support is, in theory, allowable but should definitely be looked at, because if it extends into material support, that can be treated as criminal.
A nation has no obligation to allow people to aid it's enemies. For this reason, I am pro McCarthy, and pro HUAC because they were investigating people who were members of the communist party, which was actively an enemy of the US.
So, I strongly disagree with creating a government apparatus to monitor the speech of foreigners, because such an apparatus can very easily be converted into one to monitor the speech of citizens.
I believe the highest obligation of any government is to protect the rights and liberties of everyone within its borders. That includes foreigners.
You forgot to answer the part about material support for terrorists.
A nation has no obligation to allow people to aid it's enemies. For this reason, I am pro McCarthy, and pro HUAC because they were investigating people who were members of the communist party, which was actively an enemy of the US.
But the Soviet Union was the adversary, not any specific communist party. Also, the people being investigated by HUAC were mostly citizens, not foreigners.
Is it fair to say that you want the government to investigate both citizens and foreigners who live here, who believe in an ideology that is shared by an adversary of the government?
You still forgot to answer the part about material support for terrorists.
moved
THEY DECLARED THEMSELVES PART OF HAMAS
Which has been literally holding American hostages.
Right now. Which Nazi Jeff is perfectly fine with.
Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD)
Is jeffsarc capable of posting anything that isn't completely stupid, and/or a straight up lie?
According to everything jeffsarc posts, no.
He can’t even answer a basic question about who has authority over security clearances, after responding to a story about who has authority over security clearances.
Hey Troll Mac, are you going to comment on my claim that Team MAGA is acting like the vanguard of a people's revolution, declaring all who oppose them to be "enemies of the revolution" to be swept aside?
I will comment on it - it's fucking asinine.
Yeah. It’s retarded.
Now, does the president have the authority to revoke the security clearance of a law firm?
THIS IS SUCH AN INSANE THING TO VISUALIZE
Have you ever seen K-pop, Liz?
How is your account doing - the one that went from 1k to 200k?
Has it gone to zero after drumpf came back to office?
turd, the TDDS-addled ass-wipe 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.
March 12, 2025
Robert Morris, former Texas megachurch pastor and Trump adviser, indicted for child sex crimes
Morris is a former spiritual adviser to President Donald Trump, and Gateway — one of the nation’s largest megachurches — has been particularly active in Dallas-area GOP politics.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/12/robert-morris-texas-megachurch-indicted-sexual-abuse/
#MAGAattractsDennyHastert-conservatives
Why did you quit using your OG SPB account?
Few, if any, were more high-profile than Morris, who steadily involved himself in state and national politics after founding Gateway in 2000. In 2017, Morris was tapped by Gov. Greg Abbott to help support the so-called “Bathroom Bill” that sought to ban transgender people from using their preferred bathroom — in part by arguing that it would allow children to be sexually abused.
...
During Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Morris was among at least three other Dallas-area religious leaders who served on Trump’s evangelical advisory board. And in 2021, Morris was part of an effort to mobilize conservatives and evangelicals ahead of Trump’s 2024 presidential bid.
(same link)
Who is your favorite Trump spiritual advisor, Bert?
Don't you feel better knowing trannies can't dance anymore even though child-molesting evangelicals are still out there?
(same link)
My policy is to not click links provided by you, given your history.
He doesn't even read his own links. Why should you?
Some parts that Buttplug didn't read:
"an adult woman, Cindy Clemishire, said Morris repeatedly sexually assaulted her while she was a child in Oklahoma in the 1980s"
Some other parts of the story:
"On June 14, 2024,[10] it became public on The Wartburg Watch, a religious watchdog focused on reporting abuse in churches, that Cindy Clemishire, a 54 year old woman, had claimed that on Christmas night in 1982, Morris, whom she’d been staying in the same household with, invited her to his room, instructed her to lay on his bed then proceeded to touch her breasts and feel under her panties. At the time, Clemishire was 12 years old and Morris was a 21 year-old"
turd, the ass-wipe 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.
Also, still waiting for an answer about SPB1.
Why did you stop using SPB and go to 2 instead?
Because he’s a turd?
It’s much worse than that.
I know, I’m just playing off the #2 bit of it.
People who live in glass houses of getting their account banned for posting a link to child porn shouldn’t throw stones.
turd, the TDS-addled 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.
Hey, were you and Morris on the same kiddie porn list-serve?
Are they gonna put him in the same cell with all those Antifa/BLM protesters? That would be a riot!
Pastor: So, what are you in here for?
BLM/Antifa: Same thing as you!
'Never Say You've Seen It All': Judge Hands Down Sentences to Men Convicted of Abusing Their Adopted Sons
OXFORD, Georgia — LGBTQ activists William Dale Zulock and Zachary Jacoby Zulock were sentenced last week to 100 years in prison each, followed by life on probation, for "routinely" raping their young, adopted, special-needs sons, producing "homemade" child pornography of the abuse, and inviting nearby pedophiles in the Atlanta area to "double penetrate" their two children, ages 9 and 10 at the time of rescue.
"I tell people never say you've seen it all. Because in this line of work, you will yet again be reminded of the depths of depravity and men's ability and willingness to engage in unspeakable cruelty to other humans," said Judge Jeffrey L. Foster, who handed down their punishments at Thursday's sentencing hearing.
Foster highlighted how the harm that they've inflicted has foisted negative national attention on gay men everywhere, "who fought to be married and to live happy, productive lives, stable, who would never—" the Alcovy Judicial Circuit judge said, before trailing off.
"And yet your actions have perpetuated every stereotype, every trope that causes fear. And you've damaged and contributed to the difficult struggle that others have fought for a long time to get, because you fulfilled the worst fears."
"You took these boys and pulled them out of one pit and told somebody to hold your beer, 'Because I've got one that's deeper and worse.' You've treated these two boys as personal sex toys," Foster railed.
Though the jointly indicted co-defendants were convicted on slightly varying charges after being severed before trial, Foster decided that they were equally culpable and deserved the same sentence. "One initiated it. One joined in, honestly, because it just sounded like he was jealous. I don't know what is worse."
The judge pointed to an LGBTQ-themed "Love Is Love" sign that once adorned a corner of the couple's kitchen, where some of the sexual abuse took place. Foster said he noticed the married men's Pride-centered decor featured in a number of the child porn videos entered into evidence.
Foster found the evidence "disturbing" "beyond description."
During the criminal proceedings, the defense attempted to challenge the charges via a special demurrer in a failed effort to toss out the 17-count indictment entirely. However, the move unwittingly sparked a forensic investigation into the men's 24/7 surveillance system that they had installed in the interior of their home. In response, the state threatened to re-indict the Zulocks on "hundreds" of additional counts, one for every act of abuse found in the footage, if the defense insisted on prosecutors pinpointing definitive dates of when exactly the crimes were committed.
Seven terabytes of data were extracted by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) from the 16 security cameras positioned all over the premises, one practically in every room of the property, filming everything non-stop.
"Love is not lust. Love is not control, abuse, manipulation. Love is not self-centeredness, caring only for your own's desires. Love is not pedophilia," Foster declared. "It is not a deviant sexual interest in prepubescent children. Unfortunately, that's what summarizes your home."
Under police interrogation, Zachary said William started the sexual abuse when he one day "had the urge."
When pressed on whether 10-year-old J.Z., who suffered severe physical injuries from being brutally raped, expressed any pain, Zachary said, "Unfortunately, it seemed like he wasn't bothered by it."
(In initial talks with detectives, the men acknowledged that the boys would cry out during the abuse, but they'd walk them through "how to handle the pain.")
"How did that strike you?" an investigator asked.
Instead of discussing J.Z.'s demeanor during the abuse, Zachary talked at length about how he felt finding out that William had initiated it without him, indicating he was more so upset with the fact that his husband left him out at first.
"And like I said, and then I was concerned that, you know, William had to do something and didn't tell me," Zachary complained. "I even asked him about it one night. I don't know if it was before or after oral. I was like, 'I thought you trusted me, and we could talk about anything.' And I was like, 'I wish you had—this is something you had told me about, let me know.'"
Zachary recounted having sex with William in front of J.Z. as a "tutorial" of sorts.
"So, you know, I just wanted to make sure he was okay. I would check and make sure, you know, he wasn't bleeding or anything. And at the end of the first time that William did [J.Z.] in front of me, William actually did me first in front of [J.Z.] so he could see."
Zachary then nonchalantly described how they began sexually abusing their second, younger son, D.Z.
"Well we have an extra mouth," Zachary once texted William. To which, William replied, "That is true."
Oddly outside of the New York Post and The Daily Mail a Google search finds zero MSM coverage of this story.
Memoryholed as it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Note that my intent was not to cast aspersions like "all gays are pedophiles" but simply to provide counterexample to MAGAattractsDennyHastert-conservatives. There are perverts in MAGA, there are perverts in LGBTQ community, in Democrat party...
This one is just especially heinous because of the evidence, exploitation ring, and undermining of the system that's supposed to operate in the best interests of the children.
So, silly me believes that liberty is a universal human birthright, that "all men" are "endowed by their Creator" with certain "inalienable rights". But apparently that is not the view of the commenters here. Instead, citizens have lots of rights, and foreigners don't have many if any rights. Not even fundamental rights like free speech.
So, what are the rights that you all think that foreigners should have? Any rights at all? Certainly you must think that foreigners must have *some* rights, right?
You do realize that non-citizens can be deported if they support terrorism, right? It’s not the first time this has been done.
No. In his world you get citizenship and all the benefits thereof by showing up. Borders and governments don't exist.
Life, just not here.
Liberty, just not here.
Governments exist to serve the citizens already here.
liberty is a universal human birthright
Liberty is. A visa isn't.
While foreigners are here in this country, do they have free speech rights?
No. They do not.
Okay, so what rights should foreigners have? Any rights at all?
Life!
They have a right to go back to their own country and call for violence against American Jews there instead.
You fucking antisemitism excuse generator.
They have ZERO right to agitate for changes in this country when they are not citizens. He has a home country he can do that at.
You're still discussing what rights you don't think they should have.
I'm asking, what rights do you think they should have?
You first. Tell us what rights you think you should have as a foreigner in another country, Jeffy.
I'll agree with ITL. What rights should they have?
Jeffy, let’s do an experiment. Cross either the 49th or the Rio Grande and join an organization in either country considered by them to be a terrorist organization. Then go out and call for the goals of said organization publicly. Let’s see how long you make it before being deported back here, at a minimum.
No. They have to abide by the terms of their visa or green card, and that includes deportability conditions. For instance, I may think that everyone has a right to a work at any job that will hire them, but some visas do not permit working, so don't violate the terms of the visa or you might get deported. I may think that people have a free-speech right to openly support Hamas, but doing that seems to be a violation of the law and a deportable offense.
What rights SHOULD foreigners have?
Well, what rights do you think you should have in a foreign country, Jeffy? Then reverse it for here.
You think that Putin and Russia Today has the right to USAID money? I mean, it’s viewpoint discrimination if we don’t fund Russia Today, and Stormfront, given all the other media outlets we’ve funded.
Right, Mr Lolbbertarian?
I never said anyone has a RIGHT to USAID money. Go peddle this bullshit somewhere else.
But you have said that if they don't get it there will be TB epidemics.
So, silly me believes that liberty is a universal human birthright, that "all men" are "endowed by their Creator" with certain "inalienable rights"
Fatjeff Lying Collectivist: No, you don't. Stop lying. FOAD.
So, silly me believes that liberty is a universal human birthright, that "all men" are "endowed by their Creator" with certain "inalienable rights"
Yes I actually do support this. And if you also claim to support this, then maybe you should re-examine your knee-jerk opposition to everything that I write.
The right to be shot for trespassing on J6 is his favorite right.
The right to force you to vaccinate is another one.
The right to force you to give money to other people if you don't meet his charity thresholds is another.
The right to jail you for listing a legal expense as a legal expense is another.
The right to sexualize other peoples kids is another.
Right, so no one wants to give a serious answer to this question. They just want to take rights away from foreigners who they don't like, without any general principle of what rights they think foreigners ought to have. Seems to me, this is a recipe for arbitrary government deciding on a whim what rights (really, privileges in this case) foreigners should and shouldn't have.
As usual Jeffey is lying. The only "right" in question is whether they have the right to be here regardless of what they do or if we have the right to keep people out.
They just want to take rights away from foreigners who they don't like, without any general principle of what rights they think foreigners ought to have.
Not accepting immigrants, residents, or visitors who belong to terrorist organizations or support political violence is a perfectly justifiable principle.
Exactly. Even at the US/Canada border people get turned away for all sorts of reasons. Heard a story several years ago from a friend of a relative at a memorial service talk about it. He was a customs agent at the Blue Water Bridge. One day a group of teens/early 20s guys stop at his booth. They have a barely running car and want to go to Florida. He asked how much money they had for the journey and stays. They answer back something under $100. He turned them back as he felt they would get stranded with a difficult journey to get back home and that they didn’t quite understand how far it was to Florida from Port Huron.
Man. Cartman sure managed to fist fuck the comments section today...
The only "right" in question is whether they have the right to be here
That may be the only "right" in question for you, but it is not for me.
"I cannot summon memories of that era without becoming furious at what I suffered through, without reliving the sense of utter betrayal from all authority we experienced during that period. I have never felt more despairingly abandoned, and in fact actively oppressed, by every level of government than in those dark years."
I was in West Virginia at the time. Can't say it really bothered us much. 2 weeks everything was closed, then 1 month of masking, then nothing at all. The only time I saw how bad it was is when I visited my sister in Philly. Months after everyone in WV stopped caring Philly was still 100% masks, even outside, and you needed a vax card to go into a store. I had to wait outside while my sister bought the groceries.
https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/wandtv.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/51/551ced24-6535-11ea-9826-4f4fd396dacb/5e6b960454b21.pdf.pdf
Sec. 12-39. - Orders and regulations.
After the declaration of an emergency, the Mayor may in the interest of public safety and
welfare make any or all of the following orders and provide the following direction:
(1)
Issue such other orders as are imminently necessary for the protection of life and
property.
(2)
Order a general curfew applicable to such geographical areas of the City or to the City
as a whole, as the Mayor deems advisable, and applicable during such hours of the day or
night as the Mayor deems necessary in the interest of public safety and welfare.
(3)
Order the closing of all retail liquor stores, including taverns and private clubs or
portions thereof wherein the consumption of intoxicating liquor and beer is permitted;
(4)
Order the discontinuance of the sale of alcoholic liquor by any wholesaler or retailer;
(5)
Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, or giving away gasoline or other
liquid flammable or combustible products in any container other than a gasoline tank
properly affixed to a motor vehicle;
(6)
Order the discontinuance of selling, distributing, dispensing or giving away of
explosives or explosive agents, firearms or ammunition of any character whatsoever;
(7)
(a)
Order the control, restriction and regulation within the City by rationing, issuing
quotas, fixing or freezing prices, allocating the use, sale or distribution of food, fuel,
clothing and other commodities, materials, goods or services or the necessities of life;
(8)
Order City employees or agents, on behalf of the City, to take possession of any
real or personal property of any person, or to acquire full title or such lesser interest
as may be necessary to deal with a disaster or emergency, and to take possession of
and for a limited time, occupy and use any real estate to accomplish alleviation of
the disaster, or the effects thereof;
(b)
In the event any real or personal property is utilized by the City, the City shall
be liable to the owner thereof for the reasonable value of the use or for just
compensation as the case may be.
(9)
Order restrictions on ingress or egress to parts of the City to limit the occupancy of
any premises;
(10)
To make provision for the availability and use of temporary emergency housing;
(11)
Temporarily suspend, limit, cancel, convene, reschedule, postpone, continue, or
relocate all meetings of the City Council, and any City committee, commission, board,
5
authority, or other City body as deemed appropriate by the Mayor.
(12)
Require closing of business establishments.
(13)
Prohibit the sale or distribution within the City of any products which could be
employed in a manner which would constitute a danger to public safety.
(14)
Temporarily close any and all streets, alleys, sidewalks, bike paths, public parks or
public ways.
(15)
Temporarily suspend or modify, for not more than sixty (60) days, any regulation or
ordinance of the City, including, but not limited to, those regarding health, safety, and
zoning. This period may be extended upon approval of the City Council.
(16)
(17)
Suspend or limit the use of the water resources or other infrastructure.
Control, restrict, allocate, or regulate the use, sale, production, or distribution of
food, water, fuel, clothing, and/or other commodities, materials, goods, services and
resources.
(18)
Suspend or limit burning of any items or property with the City limits and up to two
(2) miles outside the corporate limits.
(19)
Direct and compel the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or
threatened areas within the City if the mayor deems this action is necessary for the
preservation of life, property, or other disaster or emergency mitigation, response or
recovery and to prescribe routes, modes of transportation and destination in connection with
an evacuation.
(21)
(22)
(23)
Approve application for local, state, or federal assistance.
Establish and control routes of transportation, ingress or egress.
Control ingress and egress from any designated disaster or emergency area or home,
building or structures located therein.
(24)
Approve the transfer the direction, personnel, or functions of City departments and
agencies for the purpose of performing or facilitating emergency or disaster services.
(25)
Accept services, gifts, grants, loans, equipment, supplies, and/or materials whether
from private, nonprofit, or governmental sources.
(26)
Require the continuation, termination, disconnection, or suspension of natural gas,
electrical power, water, sewer, communication or other public utilities or infrastructure.
(27)
Close or cancel the use of any municipally owned or operated building or other
public facility.
(28)
Declare, issue, enforce, modify and terminate orders for quarantine and isolation of
6
persons or animals posing a threat to the public, not conflicting with the directions of the
Health Officer of the community.
(29)
Exercise such powers and functions in light of the exigencies of emergency or
disaster including the waiving of compliance with any time consuming procedures and
formalities, including notices, as may be prescribed by law.
(30)
Issue any and all such other orders or undertake such other functions and activities as
the Mayor reasonably believes is required to protect the health, safety, and welfare of
persons or property within the City or otherwise preserve the public peace or abate, clean up,
or mitigate the effects of any emergency or disaster.
'I know a girl from college who is a "Work-Life Specialist and Mindfulness Facilitator" at the U.S. Department of Transportation. She leads yoga sessions and "meditation made simple" workshops for federal employees, per her LinkedIn. This is a job I don't want my taxpayer dollars funding.'
You MAGA racsit Nazi!
"Gov workers are just like you and me."
-tonymolly
And their existence proves their necessity.
'"Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?" asks NPR's Michel Martin'
You mean now, or during the reign of Obama-Biden-Harris?
GoodBetterMediocreLess TerribleReal Liz? Adult Liz? Liz Alpha? "No pony for you." Liz?ReasonLiz is a bit different than TwitterLiz.
I've noticed that too.
Maybe they have a ReasonGPT to edit her articles.
lol nobody edits anything here
Only if you're a 'trusty'. I don't know that Liz and Robbie are.
"I cannot summon memories of that era without becoming furious at what I suffered through, without reliving the sense of utter betrayal from all authority we experienced during that period. I have never felt more despairingly abandoned, and in fact actively oppressed, by every level of government than in those dark years."
Agreed. But still more disturbing was learning how many of my friends and other regular people were (and probably still are) compliant cowards, easily frightened and easily manipulated into state-supplied-comfort seeking stooges, and eager to inform on other people who questioned the official narratives.
Yeah, that was a real bummer.
Yeah, my net take away from the whole thing was a realization of how things like the Salem Witch Trials could so easily happen.
Agreed. But still more disturbing was learning how many of my friends and other regular people were (and probably still are) compliant cowards
That has been the hardest thing for me after COVID. Knowing that a large group of my friends and associates would have turned Anne Frank in.
Just prior to COVID I had reconnected with some HS friends on a private FB group and we were having a pretty good time on the group-chat. I walked away from it soon after COVID after being derided so many times for not 100% bowing to the narrative. Fortunately, my best friend, despite being pretty liberal and compliant to the government's demands, was able to set my opinions aside and me his. We ragged on each other, but still remain friends...he's actually visiting us this weekend. Maybe I'll dig out a mask...
I want revenge. I am serious
Same. Nothing has fundamentally changed. The scam can be repeated at any time for any reason. Somebody needs to suffer real consequences.
It's so wonderful to see the far left regaining their support for freedom of speech thanks to this Mahmoud Khalil guy! I'm sure that support of course has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his political views or anything.
But I do agree that unless the government can prove that he has committed a real crime, he should be released immediately. Unlike you far left scumbags, we real libertarians have actual genuine principles.
But I do agree that unless the government can prove that he has committed a real crime, he should be released immediately. Unlike you far left scumbags, we real libertarians have actual genuine principles.
Does posting memes on Facegram count as a "real crime"? Certainly abandoning your principles isn't a good thing but, at the same time, weak, spineless, and cowardly are principles and you orient toward or away from principles, not the other way around.
>>Does posting memes on Facegram count as a "real crime"?
like half of Europe is on line 2 ...
AFAICT, the real problem with Russian Agents posting memes on Facbeook is that they aren't overtly affiliated with or supportive of known terrorist groups dedicated to the destruction of Western Civilization. Criminally subtle and subversively non-violent.
every Russian I know is awesome idk where they get the bad rap
Convictions are not required to deport for visitors. Sorry.
Libertarianism isn't a suicide pact.
Right. He should be released immediately in Syria.
The same folks defending Mahmoud Khalil are basically the same people defending (nay, celebrating!) Luigi Mangione.
Oh this is bullshit. Luigi murdered an actual person. That is an actual crime. Show me one act of violence that Khalil personally committed. You can't. And this isn't about defending his views, which are deplorable. It is about defending his rights.
(Liz) Democratic politicians: Chuck Schumer said his party would block a Republican spending bill to avert a government shutdown on Saturday.
(my prediction) Democratic media: Republicans shut down government!
I am HOPING for a shutdown. Let DOGE do some major work. And let employees know there will not be any backpay when this is resolved.
This is one time I support the democrats whole heartedly.
Block the bill, initiative a shut down. do it please.
"Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?" asks NPR's Michel Martin to Department of Homeland Security Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar regarding Mahmoud Khalil.
I feel like we didn't get nearly this amount of introspection when we deported foreign nationals that were actively supportive of our government, just not the correct or preferred party.
I'm shocked to learn NPR is still a thing.
At least until they run out of tote bags.
Trump has a statutory basis to seek deportation proceedings against Khalil.
Sources familiar with the agency report that its level of phone service is falling, in part because employees are spending their time waiting to use shared computers to respond to [the Department of Government Efficiency's] requests for weekly emails detailing their work.
It's nice of them to start with the part that instantly tells you they've just made it all up.
I'm impressed that an email that takes, MAYBE, 5 minutes is why their phone service is failing.
Because it was so good in, say, December.
If nothing else, the threat of deporting Khalil brings up an option for dealing with people who commit crimes and other transgressions: exile. That might be worth considering on a bigger scale, especially when the crimes are more insults to ideology. Yeah, that is definitely not libertarian, but then how to deal with people who deliberately seek to destroy liberty?
If nothing else, the threat of deporting Khalil brings up an option for dealing with people who commit crimes and other transgressions: exile
You're over a decade late. See: Edward Snowden.
That might be worth considering on a bigger scale, especially when the crimes are more insults to ideology. Yeah, that is definitely not libertarian, but then how to deal with people who deliberately seek to destroy liberty?
Given the number that pledge to self-exile and then renege (let alone vow to 'uphold and defend'), obliging them to hold up their end of the contract isn't exactly not libertarian.
"...They don't have their own computers? And they're sitting in a queue like schoolchildren in the library, waiting to use a single shared computer to respond to Musk's five-things-you-did-last-week emails? How long does it take to write those emails? And why don't they have computers?..."
It's a government agency; expect stupid on a grand scale.
It's most likely a lie. Government has no concern saving money by limiting buying computers. See how many bullets the IRS bought.
Most likely the discrepancy is their work is done on a mainframe with controlled access precluding email.
Their building are operating half capacity. They can easily expend their air gapped networks if so.
expect stupid on a grand scale
If you thought massive numbers of parked software licenses were bad, wait until you see how many employee who work remotely without computers we've got!
But the continued federal employee freakout over being asked to justify their jobs by detailing what they've done at work makes no sense to me.
It makes perfect sense when you realize that the only time a lot of these people have ever thought about what they actually do at work is during the annual performance review.
The DoD employees complaining about it, though, are the most hilarious because Weekly Activity Reports, or WARs, have been a common thing in the military for decades, specifically to keep commanders informed of what's going on in their units. And they only take about 5-10 minutes to write up, if that, if you're only putting together 5 bullets.
In another hilarious post on r/fednews, the cows of the federal government are acting like big-time rebels for not taking their work computers home with them.
That's the way it normally works, you spoiled overgrown children.
They are likely labeled exempt, not hourly. Fire them if they don't complete their work due to their actions.
In my 30 years in the corporate world, we also had varying requirements for documenting work and progress. In fact, more often than not, many people had trouble keeping their reports to a reasonable size. During an era when we passed out a single PowerPoint slide template, with expectations of, yes, a few bullet points and maybe 100 words, one of my reports reset the font size to 8 and changed the margins so she could fit a personal novella on one page. Then we had to set font rules.
In my 30 years in the corporate world, we also had varying requirements for documenting work and progress. In fact, more often than not, many people had trouble keeping their reports to a reasonable size.
Even personally, just good practice. I could understand if you're a laborer or surgeon or a painter and it generally gets recorded in acres of trees felled, surgeries scheduled per week, or houses painted/paintings sold, but for more information-based work, low/no documentation for months and years at a time essentially breaks down into toxic, tribal/communism-style "I'm good with people! I have people skills!"-style employment that isn't any good for the employer or the employee.
"If you didn't document it. It didn't happen."
Documentation is certainly not my favorite part of systems administration, but I like it a fuck of a lot more than having to work on even my own shit six months later without it, let alone having to reverse engineer someone else's shit three years after they've left without creating any.
>>one of my reports reset the font size to 8 and changed the margins so she could fit a personal novella on one page.
I love this person.
She was clearly doing it wrong. Courier New at 12.5 point for the win.
I've been doing WARs for 30+ years and I'm not even in DoD.
Yeah, it's either completely performative because they're actually pretty fucking common, or it's in departments staffed mostly by females who consider such things to be secondary to socializing and getting paid to protest.
You guys remember Reason's article "debunking" Trump's "Transgender mice" remarks? Well, on that article, after reading it, I posted a comment that said, "Did we just flip on our turn signal to take the 'it's true but it's not as bad as you say' exit"?
Yeah, it's true. It's very true.
The takeaway from this debacle is noting how entrenched Left Wing Privilege remains among people who aspire to authority. Musk and Trump assertions are considered false if they include a misspelled word. But left wing denials are accepted as gospel without any critical evaluation or scrutiny whatsoever. This discrepancy comes from their complete control of our institutions.
It's more than a bit off-putting that so many people who claim to oppose this institutional authority - lets call them libertarians just to assign a name at random - continue accept this and seem to completely lack the introspection necessary to overcome it.
Trump threatens 200% tariff on European alcohol as trade war escalates
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/business/alcohol-tariffs-eu-trump-trade-war/index.html
Trump picked my pockets last night pre-flight
Zero hour 9:00 a.m.
And I’m gonna be broke
As a bum by then
I miss liberty so much I miss my life
It’s lonely without Nancy Mace
On such a worthless flight
And I think it’s gonna be a long, long time
‘Til Tariff Man brings me ’round again to find
I’m not the rich man they think I am at home
Oh, no, no, no
I’m not a MAGA man
Tariff Man, burning up my cash up here alone
Just think of how much richer we will be when those Europeans are forced to pay a 200% tariff on their exports to the U.S. while the prices of those goods remain the same for us.
/what retarded Trump defenders really believe
Mr. Strawman, bring me a false equivalency…
you could totally riff a Dear Mr. Fantasy on that
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.
Keep your day job.
More like, get one.
Or, fuck off and die, asshole.
I've always assumed he doesn't work and is on some form of disability.
He was a fry-cook/steak burner, now he's a "programmer". Doesn't know COBOL though.
He is IT help desk. Windows. Doesn't know programming. Just how to use IT tools.
This is his day job. Fifty cents at a time.
200% tariff on European alcohol?
Oh, I drink American whiskey, so I don't give a fuck.
Find some other fake-ass Dem complaint to peddle.
And the tariffs is exactly because the EU has a draconian tariff on American Whiskey and other spirits.
We aren't allowed to talk about other countries here.
Fugazi libertarians are only allowed to talk about other countries when they have the audacity to elect a non-globalist (the biggest crime a human being can commit around these parts).
"What is the specific conduct the government alleges that Mr. Khalil engaged in that merits removal from the United States?"
Good question. He voluntarily joined an organization created to both end Western Civilization and use terrorism to achieve that.
My question to you: why do you want supporters of terrorism and opponents of Western Civilization in the United States?
My question to you: why do you want supporters of terrorism and opponents of Western Civilization in the United States?
Are you asking Liz that or Reason in general, because you're likely to get two very different answers.
I'm asking the NPR person and left wingers in general. This is how the interviewee should have responded.
Ah, well, if you got a truthful answer, it would be: Because we're closet Trotskyists and the central goal is the destruction of the nation state... so supporting terrorism and opponents of Western Civilization would actively undermine patriarchal Capitalism and thus destabilize the entire system.
If you got the non-truthful answer it would be some Reason/CATO-esque response about the right of free movement of peoples and zero-cost propositions.
Their answer doesn't matter very much, the goal is never to convince them they're wrong. The goal is always to show the audience what the people really believe
Newsome isn't a candidate that I'd be worried about. He comes off as insanely slick, and thus too unbelievable.
Rahm Emmanuel, on the other hand, is a candidate that I would advise Republicans take seriously. He may be a corruptocrat Chicago pol, but all he has to do is to show how much better the city was under him compared to his successors.
I think anyone who's been associated with Obama is going to be a non-starter. Losing twice to Trump, especially after you fomented a color revolution with your apparatchiks to get him out the first time, is going to make the Obamas like the Bushes.
The guy to watch out for is Fetterman. As I've pointed out, he's politicking and doing public media appearances like someone who's laying the foundation for a presidential run, in an environment where his party's brand is pretty toxic outside the deep blue big cities. He's doing the Tulsi thing of having far left views, but hiding his power level by leaning in to issues that the right supports, like Israel and immigration enforcement.
He's got Bill Clinton's ability to connect with working-class voters without sounding like a condescending ass or commie academic like Obama and his imitators have been doing for 20 years. He carries himself like an average guy, but he's got Ivy League credentials. He's an absolute master social media troll.
the biggest thing he has to be concerned with is the effects of his stroke and the stress of a job like President when he's already been through a pretty intensive treatment stint for depression. But he has people in the GOP who will be willing to work with him (Katie Britt was the first person to check in on him in the hospital), and he has the ability to make people like Newsom, Emmanuel, Prtizker, and Whitmer look like absolute elitist scumbags. And he has no real connection to the Obama machine other than them being in the same party.
Good points.
I’m inclined to agree that Fetterman is worth watching. He’s one of the few Democrats out there who even bothers to put on a sane-looking face.
Not charismatic or glib enough (through fault of his own obviously), and Fetterman is only one of the only democrats I have any respect for at all. There's no way he can do a major televised national debate and instill confidence in the average person that he's fit to withstand that level of job pressure and intensity.
Why don't the Dems just re-run their most successful candidate in electoral history?
"SHE WAS ENDORSED BY QUEEN LATIFAH! QUEEN LATIFAH NEVER ENDORSES ANYONE!" -Joy Reid.
...well, not for free anyway...
Not sure who it will be, but I would bet money that they are going to run a lady in 2028.
IT'S HER TURN! Whoever she is.
DO NOT underestimate women's ability to simply vote for the better looking guy. They really do that.
Taxpayer services will surely suffer if there are fewer people available to answer phone calls and emails; refunds might be delayed, which comes at a real cost to people.
I wonder if a simplified tax code might reduce the demand for IRS labor? Just spitballin'.
"Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?" asks NPR's Michel Martin
Nervously and with visible perspiration.
- A chorus of woodchippers hum continuously in the distance...
“Barron…it’s me. I learned the truth. It’s all computer. You were right.”
https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1899668669644636233
>>Wait, back up. ... How long does it take to write those emails? And why don't they have computers?
recently you may have heard buzzwords like fraud waste and graft?
>>"Is any criticism of the government a deportable offense?" asks NPR's Michel Martin
celebrate Michel Martin outing itself as a retard.
>> writes Matt Taibbi. "... Trump is suddenly blowing it on the speech in a big way ... pandering to Israel
if Taibbi thinks the Khalil thing is pandering to Israel and hanging 1A by a thread I may rethink Taibbi
Investigative reporting, pretty top notch. Opinion pieces, meh.
word
>>Schumer's declaration Wednesday raised the stakes in an ongoing game of chicken
it's exactly like Footloose except T is on a Farmall and Schumer is on foot
>>A majority of Americans believe President Donald Trump is being too 'erratic'
polling 'erratic' is dumb it doesn't mean the same thing to any person.
Seriously. "erratic" just means "ungood" in this case for most people
"He is a legal permanent resident. So what is the standard [for deportation]?"
The standard is "Marco Rubio fucking feels like it", per the statute.