a week or two ago levin was talking about obama being thrown in jail for surveilling trump i can give you guys nightly updates if you wish
My cousin is a student there. He lives in some cabin or shed behind the school and hikes out to go to class everyday.
no please don't thanks I should've said "people like Savage and Coulter, ugh" I was trying to express how horrifying it is that people like that get grouped into a list with some other people on that list. It really depresses me
Now I'm actually imagining Levin saying everything that shake says, and it's surprisingly difficult to differentiate.
Levin is every bit as bad as Coulter and Savage, if not worse. He has contributed absolutely nothing to any philosophy, let alone classical liberalism
black rednecks and white liberals is pretty good. end the Fed does an ok job of explaining Ron Paul's position on the Fed and why it needs to go away. Race and Economics is good. I haven't read much on any of the rest of them, but generally Savage, Coulter and Levin are characters, not real people that should be taken seriously. Why isn't Alex Jones on the list??
Probably premature, but: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-really-helps-workers/?utm_term=.359ef7d6b124 A ‘very credible’ new study on Seattle’s $15 minimum wage has bad news for liberals
The study didn't include large employers. That in itself makes this study pretty suspect to me. How an you make such broad conclusions about the minimum wage when not factoring in the cities largest employers that would theoretically account for the largest amount of minimum wage employees? But an interesting result here... What would be the definition of a more skilled "sandwich artist," fry cook, cashier, waitress, bus boys, etc.? Someone has to do these jobs all day long, where are they finding time to make these people do tasks that produce more revenue? Or are they just cutting back on those jobs and creating entirely different positions?
Way to casually disregard large caveats in the article about drawing conclusions from the paper. Even though that's the article's headline, it is pretty intellectually dishonest.
I did. I think it will be an uphill climb to win the party nomination but I would love to see him vs. Claire McCaskill in a debate.
If only Petersen could find a way to use Jesus to justify his desire for complete austerity and downward class war, he might have a real shot here.
House Approves Amendments to Block Sessions’ Asset Forfeiture Directive In a rebuke to Jeff Sessions, the House of Representatives approved several bipartisan amendments to block his asset forfeiture directive. The Republican-led House of Representatives approved three amendments to a large spending bill Tuesday that would attempt to block Attorney General Jeff Sessions' civil asset forfeiture directive. In July, Sessions announced he was ending restrictions put in place by former attorney general Eric Holder on when federal law enforcement could "adopt" asset forfeiture cases from state and local police. Asset forfeiture—a practice that allows police to seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even when the owner is not charged with a crime—has come under bipartisan criticism in recent years. Holder's directive was intended to stop local police from using federal adoptions to bypass stricter state asset forfeiture laws passed in response to those criticisms. previously reported, Republican and Democrat members introduced amendments in August to try and use Congress' power of the purse to block the Justice Department from being able to spend any funds on implementing Sessions' order: Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), a vocal critic of asset forfeiture, introduced an amendment that would block the Justice Department from funding any of the activities prohibited by a 2015 directive from former attorney general Eric Holder limiting the program[...] Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Tim Walberg (R-MI) are asking for a change blocking the Justice Department from funding Sessions' directive. The department's forfeiture program existed prior to Sessions' order, so it's unclear what effects the amendments would have if passed. The House approved Amash, Raskin and Walberg's amendments, which also had bipartisan cosponsors, by a voice vote Tuesday. "Under current civil forfeiture law, the system is ripe for abuse and has undermined the constitutional rights of far too many Americans," Walberg said in a statement. "We should not accept a system where the government can seize innocent people's property without charging them with a crime." Advocacy groups such as the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm that has challenged asset forfeiture laws in several states, applauded the votes. "Civil forfeiture is one of the greatest threats to private property rights," said Institute for Justice attorney Robert Everett Johnson. "But today, hundreds of members of Congress came together and voted to block an alarming expansion of this government power." A Reason investigation earlier this year showed asset forfeiture in Chicago primarily hit the city's poor, minority neighborhoods. An investigation by the Nevada Policy Research Institute in Las Vegas had similar findings. "In a rebuke to the Justice Department, the House voted today to stand for civil liberties, and curb the federal government's ability to take a person's property without due process of law," said Holly Harris, the TKTKT of the Justice Action Network, a bipartisan criminal justice advocacy group. "It's astonishing that, here in America, someone's property can be forfeited even when that person has never been charged with a crime." The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
there are few things more inimical to proper governance than this practice. It's the most basic of due process analysis you can do. Like, a fucking four year old understands that if you didn't do the crime, you aren't penalized. Fuck Jeff Sessions on a legal level. Also fuck him on a pragmatic and political level because he knows all of these states' practices will be rejected by SCOTUS soon. 7/8 justices set up the framework earlier this year in Nelson v. Colorado (invalidated a Colorado law requiring those with seized money to "prove" themselves innocent by a clear-and-convincing standard to get a refund). There's almost nothing that unites the present court more than criminal justice reform, and he certainly knows where the several cases currently up on review next year are going.
Judging from Reason's comments section over the last year and libertarian twitter at large, it seems the 2016 election and the rise of Trump and nationalism has cause a fault line in the L party as well as R and D. There's a wing of nationalist and paleolibertarian ideology that runs counter to how I view libertarianism that I would really like to see removed. Luckily it seems like the national party isn't going that direction. If someone like Tom Woods were to be steering the party, I'm not sure I'd be able to support it. Any thoughts from our resident libertarians?
Just finished it. Amazing. Shit, some of the adherents to our far right ideology are attracted to another far right ideology? What do we do? I know! How about a YouTube video full of, "Well actually by-your-logic..."
but really, I think anyone who holds a particular view, politically or otherwise, holds that view because they believe in it. It's a little grandiose to call it "defenders of enlightenment", but it's the same viewpoint that anyone has, looking at someone else who does not share that viewpoint. You are just not understanding my position and why it makes more sense than your position, and if you did, you'd be on my side. I think this is true of Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Ba'ath Party, etc.
This is the fedora/reddit/goatee response I always wanted. Can you guys at least update the thread title to defenders of the enlightenment?