Why am I picturing The White House spending most of the past week prioritizing trying to figure out a way to not send any relief efforts to Florida?
1 Like
Well, the Republicans voted against aid after Sandy because it hit a blue state.
A quick search turns up:
But that only applies to government, not private business.
And not a specific prohibition but shows the pattern (may be meterwalled):
That’s just the obvious stuff from the first page on Google.
So it doesnt apply to banks/businesses, and it even isnt a specific prohibition?
You are correct, there is a growing pattern here. It just isnt the one you want it to be.
2 Likes
Rubio said he voted against the larger bill because it contained “unrelated pork.” (“Pork” or “pork barrel” spending is government spending for localized projects secured primarily or solely for bringing money to political representatives’ districts.)
There was funding for many things in the $60.4 billion package, including money for a declared fishery disaster in Alaska, Ellis said. But nearly everything had some relationship to a disaster — not only Sandy — although some were more tenuous than others.
“The question is did it have to be funded in an emergency supplemental” meaning it would allow lawmakers to evade budget caps, Ellis said. “And the question for Sen. Rubio and every other senator, is how much is too much extra stuff and what is the alternative.”
Republicans who objected made similar “pork” arguments. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said two-thirds of the bill was pork spending unrelated to hurricane relief.
So no, they didnt oppose sending aid. They opposed all the other crap being attached to the actual aid.
I’m going to give you a free one hundred million dollars, but part of the deal is I get to shoot you in the head. Is the narrative criticizing how stupid you are for not taking a free hundred million dollars really accurate?
And from the embedding “fact-check” link:
The advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense assembled a body of data on spending related to Sandy. The group’s vice president Steve Ellis said no matter how you look at the numbers, two-thirds of the funds “are definitely Sandy related.”
Ok, so maybe only $20 billion was pork, instead of $40 billion. I guess that’s suppose to make it ok?
3 Likes
I can find very few stories from the past week that presents this issue honestly, so I am not surprised you have taken the bait from legacy media. And they do the exact same thing every time. I’m sure you forgot that this exact same tactic was used to slam Texas senators back when aid was proposed for their state. Just dust off the old playbook and run it again. Leftist journalists are so predictable.
2 Likes
The problem is that in the reality of politics bills provide something for both sides. The Republicans want pure bills to deal with what they want but to put their stuff in the bills the Democrats want. Hence we get things like the Republicans voting against bills they want that they know are going to pass.
I hope the Supremes take away their immunity and the lawyers don’t leave a scrap of meat on their bones.
1 Like
I presume that you’re presenting a one sided view of things. I don’t deny it probably occurs, but why only blame Republicans … unless you’re seriously going to say that the mirror of your above statement is false.
1 Like
Then all user content systems would either disappear or become an absolute useless mess.
1 Like
Or online platforms will become true publishers and not obvious advocates for one political party as they are now.
2 Likes
An interesting contrast to the kill babies attack ads by the Democrats on pro-life Republicans. Also the non-woke language used by the article.
For some couples, finding a job that offers benefits to cover infertility could be the difference between having kids and not. One in eight couples in the United States has trouble getting pregnant and the cost of fertility treatments is not cheap.
You might expect a tech company or big bank to offer coverage for treatments like in vitro fertilization, but Starbucks also offers the perk – even for part-time baristas.
Now, some women are taking jobs there, in hopes that becoming a barista will get them a baby, reports CBS News correspondent Anna Werner.
1 Like
More stuff coming out on this thanks to on the ground reporting from the right. You will never see the legacy media report on this case ever again now that it has turned out to be so one-sided and weak.
The private criminal complaint filed by abortion escort Bruce Love and obtained by The Federalist conflicts with the allegations contained in the federal indictment returned against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mark Houck. That fact and an email exchange between Houck’s lawyer and the U.S. attorney’s office raises significant questions about the Biden administration’s decision to charge Houck with purported violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or “FACE Act,” and further calls into question the FBI’s excessive show of force when arresting Houck.
The first response Houck’s attorney received from the U.S. attorney’s office, following two phone calls and an email, came more than three months later to advise him that his client had already been arrested.
The state court dismissed Love’s private criminal complaint after he failed to show up for a required hearing, only to have the Department of Justice take up the case. But as a matter of law, the facts of the private criminal complaint sworn out by Love do not constitute a violation of the FACE Act because Houck was standing at a corner away from the abortion facility, no clients were involved, and the alleged assault had nothing to do with so-called reproductive services. And that conclusion flows from Love’s version of the facts, ignoring Houck’s allegation that Love was harassing his 12-year-old son.
2 Likes
“On the ground reporting” is often pure fabrication.
However, even if everything you say is right it only changes the charges, not the fundamental fact that he responded to words with violence. He’s still guilty.
No. Removing the protections means they have to go with 100% moderation–completely prohibitive. Perhaps they can go with no moderation–and end up in a sea of spam, kiddie porn, jihadist hate etc, places where most people won’t go. In either case they’re destroyed.
What you’re actually after is moderation that agrees with your position.
1 Like
…but not of any Federal crime. That’s the problem.
It means that they’d need to have a set of rules that apply to everyone, not a set of rules for what some write and other rules for what others write.
1 Like
They got the original criminal complaint that the complainant swore to. That takes actually reporting effort, nothing the legacy media was willing to do in this case since it doesn’t support their narrative.
You clearly didn’t read the article. In order for an assault of an abortion “provider” to be considered a violation of the FACE act, the accused has to act with specific intent to interfere with reproductive health services. The escort had an ongoing beef with Houck. The two got into it when Houck believed (right or wrong, I don’t know) the escort was getting too close to Houck’s son. The escort wasn’t escorting anyone at the time. The criminal complaint says so. As much as your side would like it to be so, it’s not a federal crime to simply assault a Planned Parenthood worker or volunteer. It is only a federal crime to physically interfere with someone providing “reproductive health services” (nee: getting an abortion). Houck’s attorneys have successfully defended others against FACE act arrests. Looks like they won’t have a very hard time doing that in this instance as well.
Read the article. If you still think after reading it that the FBI has a good case, then you letting your bias get in the way of your better judgement.
1 Like
As I said, even if everything is right it only changes the charges–he’s still guilty of assault and battery. I’m thinking a friendly local wouldn’t prosecute so the feds stepped in.
Try again. Read the article. Houck had a criminal complaint in state court sworn out against him (that contradicts the federal indictment) and the complainant didn’t show up to court, twice. If the complainant wants to try that again (doubtful if the court would let him), he’s got 9 days before the statute of limitations runs out (this happened a year ago).
I’ve seen my share of he said/he said simple assault cases in state district court to confidently say that there is a very good chance he wouldn’t be found guilty by a judge based on the facts of this case.
2 Likes
I think there are lots of answers to this problem, but they’re just ones the big social media companies would rather than use, but that’s since they’re ad driven rather than trying to make a good communication platform. For example,
- if you’re worried about spam/bots, charge $5/year/account and have plausible throttles for posting
- if you’re worried about flame wars, hate, etc, have good user tools to block anyone you don’t like so you never see their comments again. Each person can curate their own block list, or maybe share a good one with friends, etc
- plus now you can fire all your Trust & Safety staff and just do whatever the bare minimum is to comply with actually illegal things like posting kiddie porn or whatever. That’s instead of needing a China style army of WrongThink screeners on staff trying to make sure the Right Party Always Looks Good and censoring doctors for taking about covid, where it came from, whether the cherry flavor or apple flavor horse dewormer works better, etc.
But right now they are happy with bots driving engagement and maybe inflating their view counts for ad selling purposes, and they’re happy with people being mad at each other and arguing online since that keeps them on the platform instead of going out for a walk or drinks with friends or whatever.
In possibly related news, Elon Musk was apparently sufficiently afraid of making a bigger mess and fool of himself in DE court tomorrow when he was scheduled to testify that he said he’d buy Twitter per the original terms after all. We should know in a week or two if all goes well.
2 Likes
This is going to turn into a cesspool very quickly. Post a huge amount of Google-bait for $5? They’ll do it.
And nothing I have seen about it says why he didn’t show up. This makes me suspicious that it’s something like not being notified.