Fill up on power, performance, and efficiency.
We’re celebrating #AudiDieselDay in the capital of commuting by offering complimentary diesel at this Santa Monica station. http://audi.us/HQ1oAs
When a (free) market actor wants to convince you that their product is worthwhile, they make their case peacefully. Often, that will just be some effective advertising. Or they’ll demonstrate their product’s abilities in some grand fashion, like when Toyota paid to use one of their trucks to tow the Space Shuttle when the government’s tax-funded machinery was unable to cross a bridge. Or they’ll appeal to your sense of charity and in so doing perform good deeds, like Tide during natural disasters or Coca-Cola’s efforts in providing clean drinking water to areas without. They’ll appeal to your pocketbook by offering it for less than a competitor. And sometimes they’ll take that even further and just give you free stuff - like Audi above. And despite all the various ways these market entities vie for your patronage, you ultimately have the power to simply walk away.
The state, on the other hand, just threatens you with violence. You’ll either sign up, subsidize, and bail-out or be forcefully removed from your home, away from your family and possessions, and thrown in a rape-cage.
As a follow-up to my earlier post on “Real Heroes”:
If you want to thank a hero today, thank your mother or your wife. Thank your father or husband. Thank those family members and friends who care about you and have cared for you. Thank the individuals - like farmers and teachers and engineers and biologists and entrepreneurs - who peacefully made your life better, healthier, safer, and happier… whose wages and rewards are not predicated on force, who don’t demand ritual genuflection, whose ultimate value is not simple obedience, and who perform their deeds without perpetuating injustices elsewhere.
My true hero worth celebrating is my wife, Amanda, who is an amazing mother to my two daughters while carrying baby #3. Her flag is pink with a picture of a peanut butter cup-topped cupcake. And to her and my children, I pledge allegiance.
A real hero is a mother who raises children to be kind and honest and eager to learn.
A real hero is a parent who sacrifices time to provide for his or her family.
A real hero is a doctor who heals the sick and mends the injured.
A real hero is a farmer who tends the soil to provide us sustenance.
A real hero shares uncomfortable truths about our world, even at great personal risk.
A real hero is a firefighter who chooses to face imminent danger in order to directly save lives.
A real hero is a carpenter or architect or engineer who builds us the structures that make our lives safer and our world smaller.
A real hero is a scientist who spends his life in search of cures and remedies.
A real hero is a person who voluntarily feeds and clothes the needy, and gives them hope in times of hopelessness.
A real hero is a teacher who explains to us the details of how our world works.
A real hero is an inventor or entrepreneur who dreams of new ways to make our lives better and gives us the inspiration to do more.
A real hero is a writer or performer who lifts our sadness and offers us joy.
A real hero is a fisherman who braves the elements to keep us fed.
A real hero is a businessman who provides what a community demands better or for less than they could find elsewhere.
A real hero is a person who saves his wealth, deferring his own consumption so that others may have a chance to improve their station.
A real hero is a friend who listens to our worries and provides comfort during our trying times.
A real hero is any person who sees others living their lives peacefully, and lets them be.
We encounter many heroes in our day-to-day lives.
Real heroes are peaceful. Their heroics aren’t predicated on inflicting harm. Real heroes are not responsible for the deaths of untold innocents, including children. Real heroes do not perpetuate injustice throughout the world. Their primary value is not unflinching obedience. They don’t face imprisonment for not obeying commands from superiors; they do what they do because they choose to do so. They participate in mutually beneficial behavior. Their remuneration isn’t forcefully extracted from others, nor do they have guaranteed benefits for life. Real heroes don’t expect - nay, demand - public adulation for themselves or their symbolism. And they don’t represent the armed extension of tyranny cloaked in the facade of honor, justice, freedom, and selflessness.
There are many heroes you should thank today, just not the ones you’re usually told to.
Related: On Veteran’s Day
My daughters, aged 2 & 5, share a room (the little one’s old bedroom is now the nursery for baby #3 on the way), and they have recently gotten into the habit of sharing a bed. They’ll just climb into the same bed right at bedtime or one will sneak into the other’s bed in the middle of the night. Some nights they’ll snuggle up right next to each other; sometimes they’ll sleep at opposite ends. It’s absolutely adorable, and every time I see them I can’t help but think that I could have saved money by just buying one bed.
"If you like your plan, you can keep it."
Or so went the narrative, in its attempts to make the cramming of a non-partisan policy down our collective throats more palatable.
It was a lie.
It’s a lie now, as reports of cancellations and price increases keep pouring in (stories like this from a former Obamacare supporter). An NBC investigation reports that “50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.””
But it was a lie then, too.
We already know that administration policymakers were aware that President Obama’s promise that people who like their plans can keep them under Obamacare was not true, because estimates built into early regulations indicated that many plans would lose their grandfathered, protected status.
A report in today’s Wall Street Journal indicates that senior White House advisers were also concerned that the promise could not be fulfilled, but decided to let the president make it anyway:
When the question arose, Mr. Obama’s advisers decided that the assertion was fair, interviews with more than a dozen people involved in crafting and explaining the president’s health-care plan show.
But at times, there was second-guessing. At one point, aides discussed whether Mr. Obama might use more in-depth discussions, such as media interviews, to explain the nuances of the succinct line in his stump speeches, a former aide said. Officials worried, though, that delving into details such as the small number of people who might lose insurance could be confusing and would clutter the president’s message.
"You try to talk about health care in broad, intelligible points that cut through, and you inevitably lose some accuracy when you do that," the former official said.
The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate “if you like your plan, you can probably keep it” isn’t a salable point.
So they apparently decided the president should repeatedly make a promise that wasn’t true, and whose impacts would be felt by millions of Americans, simply because they hoped that would make it easier to sell the legislation they wanted to pass.
From the aforementioned NBC report:
[That up to 80% of insured will lose their existig coverage should not] come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
Put aside the fact that under-compensation of doctors would lead to a drop in quality and availability of care. Health and Human services had projected that most health insurance wouldn’t be able to be kept, by design.
Make no mistake: this false promise was crucial in passing Obamacare.
And now, with so many publicly acknowledging his blatant lie regarding the [Un]Affordable Health Care Act, Obama’s in ret-con mode hoping to Jedi mind-trick the public into making them think he said something different.
Here’s how Obama described his promise yesterday: “Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”
This isn’t just an update. It’s a backwards revision. Obama is not just changing his claim going forward—he’s attempting to alter what he said in the past as well. …
You can see what he actually said in the video above.
Got that? If you’re happy with your plan, nobody’s changing it. If you like your plan, you can keep it. You will keep it. Nobody’s changing it.
There are no exceptions here, no qualifications or caveats. It’s a promise, as Obama has said, period. No matter what.
This is what Obama actually said. But now he’s saying it’s not. He’s covering for his old lie with a new one—an insistence that he never misled in the first place. And he’s hoping that everyone just goes along. The most ardent fanboys might buy it. But most people, I suspect, will see it for the artless and desperate revisionism that it is.
This airbrushing of history isn’t something new, mind you. After all, eugenics was central to progressivism and racism was and is central to a desire for a minimum wage - uncomfortable truths are always given a fresh coat of fiction in order to advance a necessary ideological precept. Fortunately, we live in the age of the internet where the truth is harder to keep under wraps.
But that hasn’t stopped the compliant media from their usual apologetics:
This is a gut-check moment for the mostly left-of-center journalists who have made such a show these past few years of dropping false equivalence and calling out political bullshit at the source. You can subject the policy and politics of Obamacare to truth-scans, or you can carry water for the president. You cannot do both, at least without a laugh track.
And all these lies will continue. Because enough people want to believe them. That’s how he got elected in the first place: he’s a slick salesman, and he tells people what they want to hear. How can anyone trust what emerges from a cloud of lies?
The president’s promises that individuals could keep health plans and doctors were false, and his senior advisers knew it, but decided to mislead people anyway because it made for a better sales pitch. The administration’s repeated assurances that the exchange system was on schedule and on track to work were either intentionally incompetent or deliberately misleading. Obama promised the exchanges would work fine despite not having run complete system tests; multiple senior administration officials claimed they didn’t have enrollment data, even though it’s clear that Obamacare’s overseers had early numbers in hand. On health care, the administration has never had much to offer except distraction, deception, and false hope designed to bolster its own reputation and hide the empty promises it could not keep.
With this record of evasions and incompetence, it is impossible to trust anything the administration says about the health law and its implementation. The only questions that remain are how bad it becomes, for how long, and what deceptions remain to be revealed. What, in other words, are we being given false hope about now?
Unfortunately, too many are comfortable being lied to by political leaders:
President Obama knew that his rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act was misleading and that many people who bought insurance on the individual market would be forced to get new policies when Obamacare made their policies illegal. The Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page thinks that Obama knowingly lied, but he isn’t that upset about it, because “that’s one of those political lies, you know.”
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance while under oath. He was not forced to resign his post, let alone prosecuted, and in some circles more ire has been aimed at the man questioning him.
Dick Cheney remains widely respected among Republicans despite repeatedly deceiving Americans about the threat Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed to the United States. In interviews, mainstream media figures continue to give his words the same presumption of truth extended to people who’ve never misled as he did.
Bill Clinton lied under oath and in a finger-wagging statement to the American people. He is, nevertheless, one of the most trusted political figures in the United States today.
There are important ways in which every lie or misleading statement is not equal. If we look at the consequences of every Bush administration misdirection prior to the Iraq War — a multitrillion-dollar conflict that killed 5,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis — their deceit was orders of magnitude more damaging than, say, Clinton and his allies subverting a sexual-misconduct lawsuit while under oath.
But there is one way in which all lies government officials tell are alike: To different degrees, they all subvert self-government by depriving Americans of accurate information as we make political judgments. They all diminish an almost depleted store of trust that’s needed for functional governance. …
Our ability to govern ourselves is undermined when Clapper lies about surveillance, when Gen. Keith Alexander misleads about NSA activities abroad, when Obama misleads in the course of defending his health care proposal, and when Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggests absurdly low-ball estimates of innocents killed in drone strikes. There are many more examples of objectionable lies, untruths, and propaganda efforts, but aren’t the ones listed enough to raise general alarm?
The Illinois House has voted 61-54 to allow same-sex marriage. The measure will be sent back to the Senate to have the effective date changed.
Governor Pat Quinn has said he will sign the bill into law.
If a government is going to get involved in the private lives of individuals, it’s unquestionably better the less it discriminates. But isn’t it incredibly obnoxious that some power-hungry schmucks in suits in some sterile concrete building however many miles away presume the authority to decide who can and cannot get married in the first place?
Ultimately, of course, it must be repeated: the state should stay out of it altogether. How individuals wish to peaceably associate and live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion nor permission from “superiors.”
I can’t believe LALiberty has the same face as his avatar.
That is not a very flattering photo…
A word of caution for kids heading off to college this year: Your degree may be worth less and cost more than you think. Your job prospects will likely be grim, whether or not you get that sheepskin. Oh, and you’re on the hook for trillions in federal debt racked up by your parents and grandparents.
Washington has willfully ignored the looming crisis of entitlement spending, knowingly consigning young Americans to a future of crushing debt, persistent underemployment, and burdensome regulation. Politicians on both sides of the aisle share the blame.
This summer, Congress made a big bipartisan show of cutting student loan rates to 3.4 percent from an already artificially low 6.8 percent. But even that seemingly helpful gesture will wind up hurting the Americans it claims to help. Federal student aid, whether in the form of grants or loans, is the main factor behind the runaway cost of higher education. Subsidies raise prices, leading to higher subsidies, which raise prices even more. This higher education bubble, like the housing bubble before it, will eventually pop. Meanwhile, large numbers of students will graduate with more debt than they would have in an unsubsidized market.
And when those new, debt-laden graduates head out into the labor market with their overpriced diplomas, they may not be able to find a job. …[F]ewer than half of Americans today between the ages of 18 and 25 are employed. For those in that cohort actively on the job market, the unemployment rate is 16 percent, versus 6 percent for job-seekers aged 25 and above. …
[M]uch of the uncertainty that gets in the way of employers hiring new full-time workers can be traced to government policies.
Take the president’s health care law. Because ObamaCare requires employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance to all employees or pay a $2,000 penalty per worker, the law will likely increase the cost of current and future employees (those working at least 30 hours per week). There is increasing evidence that the new rules are leading employers to hire more part-time workers and/or to cap their workers’ time at 30 hours, especially in the retail and fast-food industries. Outfits ranging from Walmart and Forever 21 to Virginia community colleges have already started increasing their share of part-time employees.
Health insurance premiums are also going up, thanks to ObamaCare’s requirement that health insurers accept everyone who applies, that they never charge more based on preexisting medical conditions, and start paying for many medical conditions that previously went uncovered. …
[B]ecause “premiums for younger, healthier individuals could increase by more than 40 percent,” some will choose to pay the individual-mandate penalty rather than get coverage. In other words, they still won’t be insured, the job market will still be constricted by ObamaCare, and they’ll be poorer by the amount of the penalty. …
[And] before ObamaCare, there was Medicare. And in addition, there is Social Security. Spending on these programs will explode in the near future, creating a massive pile-up of debt and unfunded liabilities. Medicare is the bigger ticking time bomb, with a projected shortfall of more than $30 trillion. Social Security’s unfunded liabilities total about $7 trillion. …
While the entitlement problem represents the largest and most visible example of how younger Americans will be penalized by government overreach, it is far from the only trouble spot. Take farm subsidies: Not only do they artificially jack up the price of food, they also increase the value of farm lands, making it harder for young farmers to buy or rent land. The same can be said of the mortgage interest deduction, which artificially increases the value of homes, making it harder for first-time buyers. Like student loan subsidies, the mortgage interest tax deduction gives people an incentive to get deeper into debt than they would have otherwise.
From poor public schools to the minimum wage, well-intentioned policies tend to backfire. In addition, we are about to embark on a massive transfer of wealth from younger to older Americans. It is today’s youth who will take the brunt of punishment from Washington’s decades of “helping” previous generations of Americans. It is today’s youth who will most likely see their own federal benefits cut dramatically, their taxes increased, or some combination of the two. And it is today’s youth who will find it harder to get a good job (let alone start a company), buy a home, support a family, or do many of the things that were long considered a near-certainty for college graduates.
And it is today’s youth, by a significant margin, who supported and voted for the very policies and politicians that make them suffer. They are, in effect, instruments of their own oppression and willing cheerleaders of their own torment.
Anonymous asked: Your post with quotes from Pelosi, etc... President Obama wasn't even in OFFICE yet. What are you trying to say?
That’s the point.
When the red team called the shots, the blue team agitated against raising the debt ceiling (and against war and against violations of civil liberties and against torture, etc.) until they inevitably (because it’s all an act) acquiesced to the red team to continuously raise the debt ceiling. Now the roles are reversed, exposing the farce: political parties are primarily about power, not principle. And in the game they play, we are the losers.
It’s an older story, but this was on the local news tonight: Woman starts a Cuddling Business.
She charges $60/hour to provide non-sexual physical comfort to those who desire it and the mental and physical health benefits such contact provides. She calls herself a Professional Snuggler.
Naturally, politicians want to regulate, license, tax, and/or ban it. And you can see the comments in the link above that show how some people are upset at her choice to pursue this.
But why? What business is it of theirs?
I can never understand laws against prostitution and drugs and gambling, much less some stance against this… cushioned hugging, as it were. What does using violence against people engaging in non-violent “vices” accomplish, except preventing peaceful people from making exchanges/decisions that they deem advantageous (with the minor secondary consequences of empowering criminals and increasing criminality, diverting resources away from real crimes, straining an already flawed justice system, destroying families, and even killing innocents)?
Leonard Read famously said: “Let anyone do anything he pleases, so long as it is peaceful.” What’s so difficult to understand about that premise? The world has become too accustomed to this circular waltz of control: they allow themselves to be mindlessly herded and commanded, and in adopting this subservient reality they begin to fancy the notion of dictating conditions over others themselves.
Instead, how about we just live our own lives and try not hurting other people in the process? Anybody willing to put the whips and chains and bombs and ballots away and give that crazy idea a shot?
Anonymous asked: A drunk driver hit my grandmother while she was walking on the sidewalk. She spent the rest of her life barely able to walk. Yeah, that cop is an asshole, but she's just as bad for driving drunk and deserves what happened to her.
That is truly terrible that such a thing happened to your grandmother. Hopefully, whoever was responsible paid the consequences somehow.
However, this woman was not responsible for what happened to your grandmother.
Do you know what this woman did? Did she hurt anyone as a result of her allegedly unsafe driving, or - as is more typical - was she simply stopped at a checkpoint or for something unrelated. If she didn’t hurt anyone, how could it ever be possible that she “deserve[d] what happened to her”? What kind of warped sense of “justice” finds violent assault - in addition to arrest - an appropriate response for an activity that (as far as what is known) harmed no one?
And yes, the problem is driving that causes harm to others, or physically presents as a reasonable threat to cause harm, not drunk driving. Drunk driving is, by itself, a victimless crime (see here and here), and police brutality is always inexcusable.
I laughed really hard reading this. It’s difficult to take seriously.
You changed the title to say “Defending Brutality.”
Technically, I didn’t change the title; the post had no title as it was originally a video. And I chose a title befitting my response; see below.
Can you point out the part where I was defending brutality? No? Big surprise. After all, I didn’t do that.
Your post presumed to give the officers the benefit of the doubt. You questioned sources and demanded further context, and you downplayed the actions of the officer in question.
If your default position is to defend cops, then you are defending brutality.
The title was about defending the brutality inherent in a flawed system. Not reading the actual post naturally leads to misunderstanding.
I outright said the officer pushed her and she hit her face.
You cannot deny, as much as you may want to, what the cop did. The video is clear. But again, here you are with almost passive voice: “she hit her face.” No. The cop threw her face-first into the room.
Let’s be honest. You changed the title because you’re attempting to misrepresent what I said rather than address the content of my comment. That’s a logical fallacy, by the way.
You read what you wanted to read so you would have an excuse to go off on your angry little rant. You openly admit you hate an entire group of people based on exceptional cases.
So although you falsely believed I “misrepresented what [you] said,” here you very clearly do so to my argument as I did not “openly admit” that my hatred and disdain for cops is “based on exceptional cases.” Again, if you had only read the post - you’d understand that (1) the cases are far from “exceptional” and (2) the problem with cops are systemic.
You’ve made it clear you’re neither willing nor capable of rational discussion.
Speaking of logical fallacies, I was hoping you would have a legitimate rebuttal instead of ad hominem. This entire reply (1) objected to my title and (2) objected to my bias - two things that would be unlikely after a proper reading of my admittedly angry rant (I get angry when people side with violent bullies). After you go back and actually read my post, maybe you can come up with an actual argument to support your claim that you desire “rational discussion”?
She was not thrown. She was pushed. I don’t know if she lost her footing, or if she slipped, or if she was so drunk she had no balance. It doesn’t matter.
She was pushed back into her cell and she went face first into the bench. It sucks and it’s awful and I wish it didn’t happen, but it did.
But every time something like this happens, it’s the same shit. The video gives us limited information. Other information provided is lacking in a source, or if a source is given it’s of questionable integrity. Or it’s full of speculation.
And then everyone that is ignorant of law enforcement and hates cops shares it around. We get it. You hate cops. Whoopdedoo.
But in the end she’s still hurt and a lot of people are using this to try to confirm their confirmation bias because they hate cops, and ultimately they don’t give a fuck about the woman who was unintentionally injured.
No. Note what I was objecting to: that she “fell.” Falling implies an accident or some lack of control. And placing the word “fall” in a separate sentence from “push,” created some division from the action and perpetrator, and the consequence. Additionally, because (1) he exerted force well beyond whatever may have been necessary to move this 110 pound woman into her cell and (2) he was still holding her hands behind her back whilst doing so, his physical application of force exceeded what may simply be termed a mere push. And that is one definition of “throw”: to not just push someone or something away but to violently push someone or something from one physical position or location to another.
There’s no more context needed than what you see in the video. She very calmly walks out of the cell, a few moments later she is being forced back into the cell. Does she resist? Perhaps she locks her needs for a fraction of a second - a natural response to being manhandled. But she is a small, unarmed woman with no shoes - there is nothing she could have said or done before the moment of that “push" that would have merited such an extreme physical assault. That is not how human beings are treated. That is how someone treats someone else’s trash.
"Every time something like this happens, it’s the same shit"? Well, yeah. That’s because this happens all the damn time.
And yes, I hate cops - but you’re the one who is “ignorant of law enforcement.” It is wholly unnecessary to brutally attack non-violent innocents because they violate some arbitrary legislation. And even if you believe that some legislation is just, this repeated savagery is still excessive.
So, again, I do hate cops. Because they are animals. But no, no… Not all of them, of course. We must not generalize! Right? We must always stipulate that this is just an “isolated incident” - like those many, many, countless others. It’s a never-ending string of isolated incidents and at no point must we ever determine that the problem is systemic, must we?! But even those cops who are not power-hungry sociopathic bullies who think themselves above the law they ostensibly uphold, are still enforcers of an unjust system. Show me a cop who has never harassed, ticketed, or arrested a non-violent person (a person who did not harm another person or property, but merely violated some government edict), and I’ll show you a cop on his first hour of the job. Furthermore, as if being the armed extension of an unjust system weren’t enough, they have been given a unique monopoly on force, that is further reinforced by various protections from liability of their actions (compounded by the fact that the “good” cops never speak out against their own). It’s a sad truth that cops who suffer consequences for their brutality are far more rare than the brutality itself - and, more often than not, the consequences are suspensions with pay. Very rarely is an officer fired, and rarer still is an officer brought up on criminal charges.
The police aren’t merely the avatar of the state’s primary interaction with its citizens, it is the actual boot with which the state uses to stamp the face of mankind. They are the day-to-day agents who physically keep us subservient and in line. When those lights are approaching on the rear view mirror, the average person isn’t washed over with the calmness that comes from being protected - they tense up with justified fear as to how these thugs may wreck their lives.
So, yes - indeed - I hate cops… because that is the natural consequence of hating fascistic, authoritarian bullies. And if you spent just a few minutes scrolling through my cops tag you will see victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim after victim… And at every post consider: what would happen to the cop if he did this as a private citizen? What if a private citizen did this to me or someone I cared about? Would I be justified in physically defending myself or my loved one? Would I be justified in using lethal force against this private citizen to save my life or the life of my lived one? If you can ask these questions honestly, you will see that the cops are placed in an elevated, protected class.
I care very much about the people who are injured - not only could they very well be my wife, or my sister, or my daughter, or some other loved one… but I care about injustice against all innocents (a primary reason I am, ideologically, what I am).
We’ve seen police officers get away with everything: They beat, they harass, they entrap, they invade, they steal, they abduct, they sexually assault, they terrorize, they kill… they do this to men, women, children, elderly, pets… and they do so with the impunity that comes with the badge, and because of the public defense and cover people like you afford them.
This militarization of protection is not how a free and just society would operate. And I, for one, will not tolerate the evil and brutality that is concomitant of the dual dangers of monopolization of force and unjust legislation against peaceful activity.
If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented, and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House. If that is the case, then the Senate and the President has no constitutional authority to override the House’s decision.
Harold Pease’s original article is here …
if that were the case, they would already have done it, wouldn’t they? and if it is and they haven’t then how to explain the inaction?
Because aside from the rhetoric, most professional Republicans have no problem with ObamaCare existing, they just want it tweaked here and there and ultimately worked in their favor. They are not to be trusted any more than Democrats. They are, for all intents and purposes, the same. Democrats have shown they love warmongering like the Republicans when they were in power. And when Republicans were in power, they passed the largest entitlement in the history of the country up to that point (MediCare Part D). And they both love the war on drugs, and domestic spying, and corporatism, and everything else. With the two-party status quo, whether the red team or the blue team wins often won’t make much difference anyway.
You are all getting played.
It is completely obvious that you don’t have the first clue about how websites work. It’s really easy to write a script to immediately redirect to a pre-built site, since they HAVE shut down before.
I swear, non-IT people make me insane.. but keep me paid, so there’s that.
That these were redirects and not actual shutting down of servers was, in fact, noted - and part of the argument (perhaps reading the full post may be in order?). It may be “easy,” but it is less easy than simply leaving the site(s) up. Leaving the site be, in almost all cases, requires no work and no additional overhead. And that is exactly what most of these are: redirects that do nothing to change the fact that the data is still being hosted and served. (Also, these sites may have gone down frequently, but they have not been taken down as part of a government “shutdown” - as noted in the redirect page.)
Ergo, doing so is not a cost-saving measure but simply a ploy to cause inconvenience in order to agitate the uninitiated into frothing about the so-called “shutdown.”