Now that Team Red has demonstrated their utter hackery by suddenly changing their minds about dismantling the government-controlled health insurance system and demonstrating their deep and abiding love for expansive government, the next ripe target is so-called “tax reform.” Team Blue is already manning the ramparts in the certain fear that any adjustments in the tax code will be away from their moneybags and toward the Team Red moneybags (we know for certain that actually cutting taxes and pushing all the moneybags away from the trough is as likely as the sudden heat death of the Universe).
So it was with that thought in mind that I approached a Vox article written by the reliably mendacious Matt Yglesias as a general hit-piece on Trump. The article doesn’t disappoint, it was the expected (and at this point yawn-inducing) brew. The section on taxes drew my attention: as expected, the well-past-damn-lies use of statistics, cherry-picked quotes, emotional appeals, and the Diana Moon Glampers view of the purpose of economic manipulation.
Back on the policy front, Trump says of his tax plan that “if you add what the people are going to save in the middle income brackets, if you add that to what they’re saving with health care, this is like a windfall for the country, for the people.”
Trump’s actual tax plan would raise taxes on millions of Americans while delivering a windfall to the rich…
According to the Tax Policy Center, the average American family would see its after-tax income rise by about $760, while families in the top 1 percent of the income distribution would see their incomes rise by about $175,000 — more than triple the total household income of the median American. Trump’s plan also features a big corporate tax cut.
Now, being the sort of suspicious and cynical guy that I am, and admittedly not a news junkie, I wondered if the part about “would raise taxes on millions of Americans” was complete bullshit, the usual dishonest conflation of “tax rates” with “taxes,” or even “millions of Americans” being people in the dreaded 1%. So I followed the links to the source, the Tax Policy Center, which according to Wikipedia is “non-partisan.” From the article:
Without those revenue-raisers, nearly all US households would get a tax reduction, averaging about $4,400. The tax cuts would be highly regressive, with high income households getting much more than those with low- or middle-incomes. However, if a half-dozen tax hikes are included in a revenue package, the average tax cut would shrink to about $2,300 and about one-in-five households would pay more tax than under current law.
OK, this was the expected mendaciousness- the tax cuts are significant, and surprise surprise! the folks who pay more taxes get proportionately more reduction (i.e., the rate would be the same or smaller, but applied against a larger number). I guess that’s what they mean by “regressive.”
It was the very next several paragraphs which floored me:
TPC could not model an actual Trump tax plan since far too many critical details are unknown. For instance, the Administration has been sending mixed signals about whether it wants a tax bill to raise as much revenue as current law or whether it prefers a version that reduces overall taxes and add to the deficit.
Beyond those threshold questions, the White House outline left out many critical details. For instance, during the campaign, candidate Trump said he’d increase the standard deduction but eliminate both the personal exemption and head of household filing status. The April outline repeated the promise to boost the standard deduction but was silent on the two revenue-raisers.
In other words, “We have no idea of what the plan we’re criticizing actually is.” But it gets better:
As a result, TPC created a stylized version of what the key elements of a Trump plan might look like. It first analyzed the tax cuts that the White House outlined in April, adding key assumptions to fill in unspecified details. For instance, TPC assigned income ranges to the proposed tax brackets, which the Administration did not.
In other words, WE JUST MADE THIS SHIT UP OURSELVES. And THAT was what got cited, and Yglesias still had to apply the usual lying sack of shit spin and misquotation to it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Journalism Circa 2017.
They also made the mistake of assuming tax reform will actually happen.
*grumble*
I make $10.50 an hour right now.
10% less in taxes would be great. I do not give a fuck if someone makes $40 an hour and also gets 10% less stolen.
We would (gasp) both be better off!
But, but, but you would get further behind!
My government set me a threatening letter this month about my admittedly non-payed taxes and two days later I received a rebate cheque in the mail. Slams head onto desk, cashes cheque and buys more beer. Repeat until death. That’s what we pay for , Folks.
I do enjoy that that article will be shared by my friends. they won’t have read it, but it looks terrifying!
look behind the curtain and no one knows, there’s nothing there as you said OMWC. but it could be terrible!
“Journalism.” They keep using that word….
Unemployed? in Greenland?
A cis-hetero shitlord would say that.
Trump will cut taxes and make the Messicans pay for it. MAGA!
Tariffs aren’t taxes at all, so there is a revenue source for the government that foreigners will fund instead of Americans. MAGA!
When Trump raids the secret warehouses in China and Mexico where they are keeping stolen American jobs, and brings said jobs back to America, then more Americans will be employed and paying taxes, which is how tax cuts will be funded. MAGA!
MAGA is the new dayenu.
Tariffs were pretty much the only taxes the founders bothered to put into the constitution. I’m not a fan of any taxes, but tariffs at least have history on their side.
A pic from today’s Glibertarians.com meetup:
Is that the newest edition of the Dungeon Master’s Guide?
Not sure if this is meant as a joke or a serious question. If serious, I’m pretty sure that’s the plaque Google sends out to YouTubers when they hit 100,000 subscribers.
Even worse.
Which glib is which?
Sloopy is the Asian one.
American styled Asian or British styled Asian?
I wish I could sport a luxurious mane like the gentlemen on either side.
Unfortunately, I look more like that second guy from the right. That’s why I grew a goatee, to hide my lack of a jawline.
No beards? That can’t be right.
But no women, so that checks out. hmmmm.
So you waited until I left to take the group photo. I see how it is.
Wait, we got a gold play button? Where is this secret youtube channel?
I think it’s the one run by “Mary Stack.”
I think I know the guy on the right.
Me and my wife last year made just over the 128,000 mark and got pushed into the 28% federal bracket. That really sucked. If I would have been more savvy, I would have made a few thousand in donations to something and saved myself a lot of money.
Also, taxation is theft. Find another way to fund yourself, government.
the lachowsky foundation has a ring to it.
The Lachowsky foundation would specialize in providing guns to needy children. It would probably have 80 percent overhead though to pay the salaries of the management. The management would be me.
Can I give some speeches?
For a nominal fee, of course.
subject matter must be relevant to the overall mission of the foundation, which is enriching me.
Money… for people.
Hot girl, looking for sugar daddy.
https://patreonsucks.com/
Well, it’s a living.
At least she’s not cam-girling. NTTAWWT.
I like Lauren.
But if she could combine this with cosplaying (lots of cosplayers do Patreon sites), she might have something!
Allegedly, I was “raising funds in order to take part in activities that are likely to cause loss of life.”
Well there goes my plans of crowdfunding filibustering operations.
I was one of her Patreon donors, so a big sad face from me. My main question, though, is why the left has such a stifling monopoly in tech, and why aren’t there more on the right besides the Gab guy that are fighting back and launching their own services.
Major tech centers congregating around ‘blue zones’, and since the days of the Microsoft anti-trust case tech companies have been willing to play the lobby game and be government lapdogs. Also, the fact that SJWs are so colossally whiny that companies are starting to preemptively try to neutralize content they think can cause problems (and this is also affecting advertisers and what-not, see the recent youtube thing for how major companies don’t want media outlets publishing stories about how they have ‘ads on white supremacist videos’).
Could be the best thing for her, although I seem to remember her pulling the “I’m being persecuted ” ploy before and it didn’t turn into a steady gig in the right wing media so maybe she doesn’t quite resonated with enough conservative to get the big payoff.
Her voice drives me crazy with lust (high-school girlfriend, long story) but damned if I want that sort of thing showing up on a Visa bill. I have a wife and a mortgaged future intertwined. Sorry Lauren, go beg elsewhere.
So no Patreon for any government employee, then.
Is that Poppy!
for wvery 1000 you donated, you would have saved 280 in taxes, for a net loss of 720. which is awesome if you like what the charity is doing. they get 1k for a 720 hit to you.
but tax beackets dont work the way you seem to think.
+1 – I find it disturbing that even “libertarians” have so little conception of the tax code and basic math.
I’m not sure I’d call the US tax code basic math, but point taken. My wife and I had a similar experience to Lachowsky last year. Both made more (though not much more) and went up a notch. After years of dialing it in so we either payed a small amount or got a slight refund, we got socked. Gonna put much more into retirement account this year to avoid a similar issue.
RE: First paragraph
Thanks for the reminder that we’re perpetually screwed OMWC. Abandon all hope, all Ye who enter here.
OK, this was the expected mendaciousness- the tax cuts are significant, and surprise surprise! the folks who pay more taxes get proportionately more reduction
The whole, “Tax cuts for the rich” thing is such an obvious dishonest use of words that it has always baffled me that people buy that line of BS. Of course a person who pays 20,000 in taxes would get a reduction that has a larger dollar figure than someone who pays 2,000 in taxes. I’m not eggzakly a math wiz and I can figure that out.
Worse than that is the righteous indignation the people who pay no taxes aren’t being bigger refunds so it “hurts” them the most. For shame.
Oh, the whole head of household crappola where in a person gets a check back in excess of any taxes they may have paid thing really burns me. Especially when it is a divorcee that does not have to claim the $1500 a month they get from their ex as income, and the ex does not get to write that off as a loss of income or claim any kids that might be involved as dependents. It is criminal. The whole tax code is criminal and immoral.
On my 1040, it has a line for alimony received in the income section and a line for alimony paid in the expense section. I’ve never had to deal with it myself, but it looks like alimony is taken into account.
You are mistaken. Alimony received is reportable income. Alimony paid is deductible.
I was referring to child support. Alimony is its own form of evil.
Progspeak is full of dishonesties. Progs know that the word single-payer is utterly toxic, so they use “Medicare for All” instead to refer to the same thing. Progs know that raising the minimum wage to $15/hr is unpopular, so they use “livable wage” instead.
Rand Paul has announced that he’s against cutting taxes–unless we’re cutting them all the way to zero. There are people in this forum who think that makes a lot of sense, too–presumably since congress cutting taxes, somehow, doesn’t necessarily mean cutting taxes.
Me, I’m one of these people who thinks less tax of any kind is better–I’d rather minimize the robbery than make sure everyone is getting robbed equally.
I guarantee you there are people in this thread, however, who would oppose cutting taxes if it meant that different things (profits, dividends, capital gains, etc.) were newly taxed at different rates–and it’s not just the people who would defend shoving hot pepper up our asses if Rand Paul said it was a good idea either.
I’ve seen them argue it before–that fighting socialism through making taxes on dividends and capital gains as small as politically possible is a bad thing if it gives us different tax rates on different things. I should say, opposing tax cuts in the name of capitalism isn’t as stupid as defending Rand Paul refusing to cut Medicaid in the name of capitalism–but only because there isn’t a bill two votes short of passing in the senate that would either cut the capital gains tax or the tax on dividends.
If socialism is using the coercive power of the state to take from each according to their ability to pay and redistributing that money to each according to their need, then the proper position for a capitalist is to push minimizing the eligibility for redistribution programs, on the one hand, and to starve the beast of as much of its ability to collect funds as possible, on the other.
Any tax cut is a good tax cut. People who imagine that the government will ever be so flush with cash that it decides to cut spending are delusional.
Oh, and cutting entitlement eligibility on something like Medicaid would be an amazing achievement–so daring, no one’s ever dared to do it before.
Rand Paul has announced that he’s against cutting taxes–unless we’re cutting them all the way to zero.
I think some of you missed the thread where people were arguing about how it’s great that Rand Paul refuses to cast the deciding vote to cut Medicaid eligibility (and more than $700 billion from Medicaid over ten years)–because the bill doesn’t cut Medicaid eligibility all the way down to zero.
The other justification for why Rand Paul refuses to cast the deciding vote to cut Medicaid was because–get this–some future congress might put those people back on Medicaid and reinstate that funding!
I’d confess to being guilty of not taking Poe’s Law into account, but actually I was banking on it with that comment . . . or, maybe I should say, I was using the inverse of Poe’s Law. Poe’s Law states that parody can never be so absurd that it doesn’t correctly describe some people’s real positions; I was taking those very real positions–and hopefully showing people how absurd they are with parody.
If you think those arguments are ridiculous when they’re about cutting taxes, just make them all about cutting Medicaid eligibility instead–and they’re just as absurd. Refusing to cut Medicaid eligibility because someone might reinstate it in the future is absurd–just like taxes. Refusing to cut Medicaid eligibility (for the first time ever) because it isn’t being cut all the way to zero is absurd, too.
*There was a third argument, about how cutting Medicaid eligibility doesn’t actually cut the cost of Medicaid, but just like Tony’s assertion that adding 11 million people to Medicaid doesn’t actually raise the costs of Medicaid, those arguments are better left ignored.
Christ, what an asshole.
I was makin’ a point!
And the people for whom it was intended got it, I’m sure.
I got the point, which is why I made the comment I did.
Well, maybe you should give Rand Paul a second chance.
Sure, he’s been an asshole on this so far–what’s the point of supporting a libertarian who won’t vote to cut Medicaid?
Before this is over, maybe he’ll come around and do the right thing. Maybe he’ll pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Otherwise, surely, pointing out that Rand Paul is a jackass dog who won’t hunt is better than Rand Paul subjecting us to ObamaCare for eternity.
Seriously, if I knew that half the reason we weren’t cutting medicaid eligibility, repealing the individual mandate, and repealing the employer mandate was because Rand Paul wouldn’t vote for it, I’d have never supported him in the past.
And his vote is one of the two votes we’re missing to make the government smaller like the worm’s never turned before. Thank God Rand Paul was there to save us from that?
You’re right. He is an asshole.
I wasn’t suggesting Rand Paul is an asshole.
Yeah, I know.
Seriously, that’s a lot of butthurt, Ken. It was a bad bill that did one thing ok and a bunch of things poorly while shutting the door on further reforms and shifting the blame to the only group that might improve the situation. He was right to vote against it and all people who want a good, working health insurance market and know what they are talking about agree.
Can you highlight one of the bad things it did?
i don’t think that’s an accurate summary of his position
he outlined his response to Trump’s various tax-cut proposals, and his argument seemed to be 1) revenue Neutrality is bullshit, so stop trying to satisfy the CBO, and 2) its not big and wide enough
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/25/exclusive-rand-paul-real-men-cut-taxes/
e.g.
I think that what Ken worries about is that he feels like Rand thinks like he is talking from the majority’s standpoint, when in reality believing in freedom is still a minority position.
Is it not just simpler to skip the 6-degrees-of-feels and just quote Rand’s actual statements on tax-cuts?
See my comment above.
People claiming that Rand Paul is right to refuse to cut Medicaid eligibility–because it doesn’t go all the way to zero–and people claiming that Rand Paul is right to refuse to cut Medicaid eligibility–because some future Congress might reinstate that eligibility–are just as ridiculous as me claiming that Rand Paul refuses to cut taxes 1) because they aren’t going all the way to zero and 2) because some future congress might raise them again.
It’s parody.
Parody is supposed to be ridiculous.
P.S. You’re not under the impression that we actually have a Secret Nazi President, are you?
Is parody supposed to be excruciatingly boring?
And yet this is your third response.
drastic changes > tinkering
News update: Rand Paul has announced that he’s against cutting taxes because some future congress might raise them again.
do you have an actual source for this?
Nah, Ken’s but still hurts from the OCare reform failure, which left a lot of people cold because it wasn’t repeal and would easily be reversed when it failed, as it was likely to do.
And isn’t that the same argument for taxes?
Tell me what those arguments make sense when Rand Paul refuses to cut Medicaid but are ridiculous when applied to taxes.
P.S. I want McConnell to put it to a vote. I want to see Rand Paul either vote against cutting eligibility and more than $700 billion in cost from Medicaid or abstain–and then I want to see Rand Paul’s boy toys defend that from a libertarian perspective.
If Donald Trump is more libertarian on entitlements than Rand Paul, then I want to know that before the next primary season. Hell, if he votes the same was on cutting entitlements as Liz Warren, maybe Rand Paul should run as a Democrat.
Nope.
Rand Paul can support the repeal-only option; the establishment was proposing some monstrosity that may theoretically have cut some Medicaid eligibility while keeping and expanding a bunch of other odious things.
Again, a bill that cuts Medicaid eligibility translates into only theoretical cuts . . . um . . . why?
When ObamaCare increased the eligibility pool and millions more people piled onto Medicaid, there wasn’t anything theoretical about the cost increases.
The CBO anticipates us cutting more than $700 billion from Medicaid with the senate plan and $880 billion with the AHCA, but even apart from that, there is no valid reason to think that shrinking the eligibility pool won’t translates into cost savings.
You know, the simplest explanation for this belief is that some of us have internalized Suderman’s rhetoric–even though, intellectually, we know he’s full of shit. In other words, you may not accept his authority, but you seem to have fully accepted his framing of the issue–because that’s the way Suderman framed it. He’d say that if some future congress won’t allow those eligibility constraints to hold, then there’s no reason to constrain eligibility, which is absurd.
I repeat, there is no invisible force apart from Congress setting the eligibility requirements that determines eligibility. There is nothing theoretical about cutting eligibility translating into savings–just like there was nothing theoretical about piling millions more people into Medicaid increasing the costs.
Having this conversation within a libertarian context itself is absurd. Did deep enough, and I bet we find that Medicaid is widely used in Kentucky with Rand Paul’s core constituency or something.
Now that Team Red has demonstrated their utter hackery by suddenly changing their minds about dismantling the government-controlled health insurance system
Hmm. Yes. ‘Changing their minds’. Not ‘disingenuous liars who knew Obama would always veto so they did it only to make it look like they were doing something for their base, like a shitty employee who always pretends they’re working when you check in on them.’
Did I forget to say that I hate establishment Republicans? I hate establishment Republicans!
Yeah, the Republicans have been wooing me for eight years. I almost fell for it. Nothing disillusions one like seeing the guy they have been slowly moving towards turn out to be exactly what they suspected them to be.
Fuck republicans. If they were half ass serious about the propaganda they have pushed for the past eight years, then I could buy a silencer sans NFA regulations, I’d be paying less taxes, and Obamacare would be dead.
Eight years? More like 80.
The GOP rank and file is finally waking up to it too.
13 social justice warrior fails that completely lost touch with reality
The scary thing is, many of these would actually get a lot of SJW support.
Yeah, those mostly seem like pretty regular SJW arguments.
You know who else fired the first shots that led to a war…
Gavrilo Princip?
It’s nice to have one of these questions where the obvious answer isn’t that one guy with a missing testicle.
Lance Armstrong?
Gavrilo Princip?
How much of a percentage of every dollar you make gets taKen in taxes? I would imagine that I am currently at north of 50 cents of every dollar going to the state. This would include marginal rate, ssi, property, state income, sales and various others. Whenever I tell this to a lefty I get incredulous looks. “You must be really rich?” No, I just own a business and thus see more of my money going. The government loves to hide their theft as much as possible.
It’s why they shriek more about DeVos than Sessions. The public schools are absolutely fucking vital to the leftist project. If people didn’t spend 15 years of their lives getting 30 hours of government propaganda a week, I think people would be much much less statist.
The left secretly likes Sessions, it’s why they dance around so much about their “hate” of him. They can deal with his icky position on illegals since they can work with him to make law enforcement just a little more statist every year. They can’t do that with DeVos or Pruitt, which is why they actually hate both of them.
Hell, look at the confirmation hearings. Sessions is a drug warrior who thinks all potheads are basically the second coming of Charlie Manson, he sailed right through with no objections. DeVos thinks parents should have an option between public schools or paying through the nose for private schools. Crucify her.
It’s also why the left has absolutely hated homeschooling for a long time.
I pay at least 40% and I don’t own a business. Hell, I think anyone making a lower middle-class salary or above can say the same thing.
I think everyone who doesn’t get a check from Uncle Sugar is paying over 30%.
Highway robbery, by the police: Jeff Sessions brings back civil forfeiture
“…the immigration and law-and-order true believers who Trump can’t afford to lose given his approval ratings in the toilet won’t just stand behind him if Sessions (who, it was reported, already offered to resign earlier this year) goes, particularly with little chance of getting another such hard-liner confirmed by the Senate to replace him….
“…Trump…is stuck with Sessions, who really means this MAGA business and who’s done plenty as AG to dismantle Obama-era reforms and unleash [America’s] “greatness.”…”
“
Even when they’re narrowly right about something the Daily News still come across like assholes.
Austin Peterson on running for office as an atheist. The interviewer is name McAfee, who probably isn’t related to the Belize guy.
Who is the winner that he’s running against…?
McCaskill. Who should have lost in 2012, except she ran against idiot Todd Akin.
“SALEM, Ore. — The family of a mother who died in a car crash in Salem at least a decade ago voluntarily removed her cross memorial from the side of Kuebler Boulevard on Sunday, the city manager’s office said….
“Late last month, Rebecca Markert, an attorney for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, sent a letter to Salem Mayor Chuck Bennett demanding that the city remove the 4-foot tall cross, saying it violated the Constitution because it’s on city property.
“After being told that the cross was taken down, Markert said by email on Tuesday, “FFRF is pleased to hear that the cross has been removed. While our hearts go out to the grieving family, we thank them for understanding the problem religious imagery creates on public property.”
“”The cross dramatically conveys a message of governmental support for Christianity, whatever the intention of the display may be,” Cheryl Kolbe, Portland area chapter president for the Freedom From Religion Foundation based in Wisconsin, told KATU last week, adding that the cross appeared to be a permanent fixture. “This is not the same as a very recent car accident where somebody put some flowers or whatever or even a cross on the side of the road a week or two.””
Well if there is a hell I’ll at least know those people are down there with me.
Christ on a cracker. This is why I hate being an atheist, I’m stuck being associated with these assholes.
Tell me about it.
How many fellow atheists have you met have the “once we stop believing in God then we can stop believing in Top Men” attitude?
I don’t know. We don’t have atheist meetings. Well, OK, there are meetings, but it kind of seems to defy the whole point, so I don’t go to them.
I mean the religious folks have some good arguments with predestination vs. freewill.
What am I going to talk about an atheist meeting? “OK, so according to the minutes of the last meeting, there is no God. All agreed, OK, meeting adjourned.”
How are things working out with the Commie Pope and his judgement of the Top Men?
Take a look at my Catholic links.
Atheism+ has a sad.
I get to sleep in on Sundays without feeling guilty.
And I don’t have a sad, I’m just annoyed with dipshits using Atheism as an excuse to be assholes. I don’t believe in God, but it doesn’t cost anything to be nice.
I was joking about how atheism+ thinks there is more to atheism than just agreeing that there is no God.
I have a story due tomorrow and they saiid no more Trump Russia stuff again so what can I write about.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40683038
Groundbreaking!
He totally gets America. Wow.
OT reply: I listened to the 2016 BBC special on Hillsborough today. Recommended. Those cops really need to be locked up for a long time.
I dunno, I’m leery of a BBC take on anything these days.
It definitely exonerated the fans and slammed the cops – in a British kind of way.
So are the Brits getting terraces back?
I’m waiting for a black guy to play Poirot.
Hello Glibertarians!
Haven’t posted at the old site in a few months since that election campaign was really draining with with the questionable pro/anti Trump flamewars. I mean this site is a bit too pro-Trump for my taste but the commentariat is far more interesting and libertarian than whatever Reason has been spouting for the last little while. It really does feel like the Kochs are driving their editorial policy.
Fuck off, Tulpa.
^^this^^
Nice welcoming committee. In case your wondering I am not Tulpa
That’s exactly what Tulpa would say, Tulpa.
So if I wasn’t Tulpa I wouldn’t deny I was him? Very logical.
This one actually is Tulpa.
Um no. I have been posting at Reason for years as Winston.
That’s the kind of thing Tulpa would say.
So what wouldn’t Tulpa say?
we are all tulpa.
I’m Poppy.
Howdy, Winston.
Remember me RC? Same Winston from the old site. Have you seen Cytotoxic around lately? Has Turdeau jr been his great libertarian hope? How was Hilary’S victory?
Wait, what?
You must admit some commenters are a bit defensive of him though in this charged partisan atmosphere that doesn’t mean much and i’m not saying they are apologists. And others aren’t (like yourself) and I don’t mind it or want there to be no disagreement.
Also I find it funny saying that since I was often on the old site accused of being a HitnRunplican and a Trumpist.
All of this being said I like that this site does have people who realize that Trump is no libertarian but the #Resistance is even less libertarian (at least in the people who matter) and thinks Trump is too libertarian. These facts make the current atmosphere…complicated.
Ah, you mean commenters. I thought you were just talking about those who have contributed articles.
Instagram model accidentally reveals too much
Sooo, I’d say Valerian is about 75% as good as “Fifth Element”. Biggest problem is that the leads don’t have nearly the charisma that Willis and co. brought (nearly 20 years ago too – good gravy).
Rihanna’s performance is interesting too, but nothing can compare with the original diva dance. (meh…good clips all appear to be off youtube now).
Maybe the only movie I’m looking forward to this year
I think my issue with adaptations of Euro comics is that they always seem to choose the low-cal versions. I mean Nikopol Trilogy is a great set of books, but it doesn’t make for a gripping thriller – I’ll review the movie eventually. Blueberry was even worse IMO.
Going for something like a Metabarons project would work really well if you could get a hard R….but probably wouldn’t sell too well.
Same here.
(otoh, the more recent – post 2004 Asterix live-action films have been pretty well handled).
I don’t do comics – just looking for a fun movie. So I have no idea what you’re talking about. OK… I know Asterix – I liked the German translations when I was kid. Didn’t know there were movies.
The two ones since 2000 that have been really good are “Asterix and Obelix: Mission Cleopatra” (wow…2002 – older than I thought) and “Asterix and the Olympic Games”. With Cleopatra – they got Monica Bellucci for Cleopatra(!) and kept most of the perfect jokes from the comic – very fast and witty but the subs keep up with most of it. They added a few more contemporary gags but on the whole they actually work well.
They actually have Gerard Depardieux playing Obelix – not bad – and Jamel Debbouze has a great role too (I’m impressed in this and Angel-A seeing how they can consistently cover up his missing hand for an entire flick).
Sounds neat – I’ll keep an eye out for these. I loved the books but I have this image of the Flintstones movie in my head that makes me shudder.
So lately I’ve been thinking about libertarian pragmatism for the little while and I am wondering how practical it really is.
The big problem is that the elites/establishment/PTB/Deep State/whatever you want to call them have a very deep antipathy to libertarianism because well what do they have to gain from it? Nothing!
Even the mildest decrease in future spending means that someone on the government teat will lose money and power so they have to every reason to oppose libertarianism in every way at every step. And the msm and academia and “world” opinion are with them.
And this doesn’t include the people who think that libertarianism means poor people dying, black people getting lynched, rivers being poisoned or the ice caps melting…
“A former student has sued Catholic University [of America in Washington, DC], claiming that during a sexual assault investigation, the school was biased against him because he is male….
“At Catholic, Elise Italiano, a spokeswoman, responded to the lawsuit by saying, “The university remains confident in the way in which it conducted the investigation, the hearing and its conclusion.”
“Jesse Winograd, an attorney for the former student who brought the lawsuit, wrote in an email, “Before the accusations against our client, Catholic University was placed on a Title IX watch list putting them in jeopardy of losing significant government funding.
““In response, the University found our client responsible for sexual misconduct when in fact the sex was entirely consensual. The substantial evidence of our client’s innocence includes text messages and witnesses that exonerate our client. The University would not allow us to present that evidence at the hearing, which had no semblance of fairness or due process.””
I wonder if that Title IX watch list is public record?
+1 double-secret probation
I would imagine that list is equivalent to the “list of all schools in America”.
“Denver, Colo., Jul 21, 2017 / 04:05 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- The 50th anniversary of a historic statement that changed Catholic higher education in America represents both a cautionary tale and a chance to reflect on Catholic renewal, said Bishop James D. Conley of Lincoln, Nebraska.
“The Land O’Lakes statement proposed to redefine the mission of the Catholic university. It rejected the authority of the Church, and of her doctrinal teaching,” Bishop Conley said….
“The bishop suggested that secularization in the universities and colleges has “impacted every single facet of Catholic life” and secularized many Catholic elementary and high schools. This impact is found both in textbooks and teachers who have “not been trained to think or teach from the heart and wisdom of the Church.”
“He cited the decline of Catholic school attendance from 5 million in the early 1960s to 2 million today, faulting factors like the decline of the Catholic university. The university, properly ordered, can also be “a training ground for dynamic and faithful Catholic educators, and as a context in which to discern and discover vocations.”
“Bishops, clergy, religious and lay Catholics were formed in the wake of the statement, Bishop Conley said – himself included – resulting in “all of us doing the best we can, but regrettably, without being exposed to much of the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Church’s tradition.””
Horse enthusiastically scratches buttocks on pickup truck
***
Autoplay: On | Off
July 21 (UPI) — A pickup truck owner in Britain shared video of an itchy horse using the vehicle’s front end to enthusiastically scratch its backside.
A video captured Thursday in West Clandon, Surrey, England, shows a horse with one of its hind legs completely off the ground as it forcefully rubs its buttocks against the front of the pickup truck.
The horse’s face contorts in expressions of apparent scratching satisfaction as the incredulous man films.
“Hey, get off!” the man shouts, while slamming his hand on the vehicle.
The man’s attempt proves unsuccessful and the horse continues to scratch undeterred.
***
https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2017/07/21/Horse-enthusiastically-scratches-buttocks-on-pickup-truck/5071500662264/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=3
“Come on, you have to get back for the vote on the grain subsidy!”
/Sergeant at arms of the Roman Senate
“Plus you have a hot date tonight and you know the Empress doesn’t want to be kept waiting.”
Still more newsworthy than whatever the Washington Post and CNN are probably running with
Gov. Chris Christie signs bill raising N.J. smoking age to 21
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/07/22/Gov-Chris-Christie-signs-bill-raising-NJ-smoking-age-to-21/1881500751513/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=3
***
The bill raises the age required to buy tobacco products from 19 to 21. Hawaii became the first state to raise its smoking age to 21 in 2015 and California did the same in 2016.
Christie said the measure was personal for him, but would also help prevent young people from becoming addicted to tobacco.
“[W]e are giving young people more time to develop a maturity and better understanding of how dangerous smoking can be and that it is better to not start smoking in the first place,” Christie said in a statement. “My mother died from the effects of smoking, and no one should lose their life due to any addictive substance. Additionally, the less people who develop costly tobacco habits that can cause health problems, such as lung cancer, heart disease and developmental issues, the less strain there will be on our healthcare system.”
The legislation includes traditional tobacco products in addition to e-cigarettes and vapor machines.
***
define absurdity: a morbidly obese man giving a health lecture
“At least *my* unhealthy habits can serve as a metaphor for Big Government out of control. What metaphor is evoked by some kid smoking?”
Once again I see that pot legalization is not a sign that more people are believing in self-ownership but that they just like pot.
So it’s stated intent is complete bullshit? I am shocked.
New Jersey is hell on Earth. I don’t even like to fly through Newark airport, because I can feel the masses of progs trying to tell me how to live.
Christie might be team red, but the differences between him and the control freak leftists who inhabit his state are few indeed.
Confederate monument in Tampa, FL to be moved to private cemetery, decide Hillsborough County commissioners
You know who else wanted to stamp out all signs of a regional revolt?
Emperor Palpatine?
City in China punishing bad drivers with slogan shouting
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/07/21/City-in-China-punishing-bad-drivers-with-slogan-shouting/3281500661033/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=8
***
Drivers in a southeastern Chinese city may be thinking twice about running a red light, after a report on a special type of punishment for traffic signal violators went viral on social media.
ChinaNews.com reported Friday the public security bureau of Ji’an, Jiangxi Province, began in July to require drivers who ignore red lights to chant “I will not violate again” 100 times before they are released.
Public security officials confirmed the measure has been in effect since early July.
The story has prompted uproar on Weibo, the Chinese social networking platform similar to Twitter.
Drivers caught by police for stoplight violations must step out of their cars and stand on the side of the road while shouting the required line in public, according to the report.
***
I guess I missed the part where the “violators” were given a trial.
A trial? That’s a quaint idea.
In China, the purpose of a trial is to extract a confession and decide the punishment.
Chinese courts convict more than 99.9 per cent of defendants
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12193202/Chinese-courts-convict-more-than-99.9-per-cent-of-defendants.html
***
Chinese courts found guilty all but a tiny minority of defendants last year, despite claims by Beijing to be confronting wrongful convictions and upholding the rule of law.
Only 1,039 of more than 1.2 million people were found not guilty in the country’s Communist Party-controlled courts – resulting in an acquittal rate of around 0.08 per cent.
China’s conviction rate is commonly well above 99 per cent, with 778 acquittals and 1.184 million convictions being recorded in 2014.
Beijing’s top leaders claim to be cracking down on abuses in its legal system, but rights groups say the use of coercive measures and torture to extract confessions is still widespread in China.
“There is huge pressure on the courts and on the prosecutors in China,” said William Nee, a Hong Kong-based China researcher for campaign group Amnesty International.
China has vowed to abolish targets for arrests and convictions, announced efforts to ensure the “rule of law with Chinese characteristics” and has implemented a range of measures to protect defendants, including the videotaping of interrogations.
“The measures that have been taken are clearly not working,” Mr Nee told The Telegraph, describing the conviction rate as “astronomical”.
“When a defendant says that he has been tortured into giving a confession, a judge can choose to ignore that.”
***
So China is run by Cardassians?
“99.9 per cent of defendants”
Look at how efficient their police force is almost never arresting an innocent person! Isn’t totalitarianism great! /Thomas Feidman
Vanessa Mae plays the music of Domenico Scarlatti while wearing a scanty, skintight bathing suit
Sometimes I think that you are a cunt.
Putin hints he may be Russian president for life
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/07/22/Putin-hints-he-may-be-Russian-president-for-life/4311500761469/?utm_source=sec&utm_campaign=sl&utm_medium=2
***
In an interview with teenage schoolchildren, Russian President Vladimir Putin hinted he may remain president for life.
Putin, who is widely expected to win another six-year term after elections in March, was asked by one of the children what he would do after his time in office is over.
“But I haven’t decided yet if I will leave the presidency,” Putin said, earning a loud round of applause from the friendly audience. The session was broadcast live on Russian television across the country and the questions appeared to have been screened in advance.
***
“Mr. President, your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train, why are you so popular?”
So somebody’s going to assassinate him?
+1 Robert Davi in Licence to Kill
Glibertarians Discord
https://discord.gg/5aKBR2E
Basically a little chat room.
isnt that what the comments are already?
Yeah, cool idea but fucked if I’m gonna hand over my E-mail address. I waste most of my down time on this site and that’s plenty fine TYVM.
OK, that Vanessa Mae link was kind of a lie, but this link actually has a pretty woman. And she’s singing ‘Shiny Happy People.’
That’s the ticket! I’ll bet that Lutist (Loutist? I dunno) gets all the crazy when he whips that fucker out under a tree at the local farmer’s market. Baroque or go home sez I.
I demand more updates on Calvinball.
spieth -11
kuchar -8
rest of field doesnt matter.
the way spieth played today, kuchar doesnt matter.
Animals breaking up fights of other animals are always my favorite animal videos.
LOL that’s great
porterhouses on the grill.
i im not the best griller but i nailed it tonight.
So who should the LP nominate in 2020? Boehner/Romney? Sanders/Warren? Vince Vaughn/Rob Lowe? (if they want to be blacklisted that is) Endorse the Dems as part of an Anti-Trump Popular Front? Or the Republicans since the LP wants to be Republican lite?
Michael Hihn and Ken Shultz.
Good one!
Spencer/Harris 2020. It’s a losing proposition, breakfast food and a sit-com premise all rolled up into a delicious shit show.
Richard Spencer and Kamala Harris?
amsoc?
Perfect example of a bill that libertarians and principled liberals should be fighting to the death to stop, but since the left is as unhinged as ever about the RUSSKIES, you’ll only hear lonely squeals from Rand, Massie, and maybe Amash.