• For our 10th anniversary on May 9th, 2024, we will be giving out 15 GB of free, off-shore, DMCA-resistant file storage per user, and very possibly, public video hosting! For more details, check a look at our roadmap here.

    Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! All our official content can be found here. If you have any questions, try our FAQ here or see our video on why this site exists at all!

The Official Congressional Blacklist

Phiwise_

Adherent
Messages
29
Specialization
Technophiliacs & Technophiles
Either way, you have to admit that it would at least be extremely annoying.
Not really. I find it quite enjoyable to support business I like over business I don't.

Banks would definitely love if that happened, but I don't see any government seriously agreeing to that for several reasons.
Huh? What would a central bank find disagreeable about a centralized currency? Especially with the backing of law to monopolize it.
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,315
Not really. I find it quite enjoyable to support business I like over business I don't.
Still don't think you understand the scope of this problem, but alright. lol

What would a central bank find disagreeable about a centralized currency? Especially with the backing of law to monopolize it.
Nothing. That's what I was saying. Banks would love it. Governments shouldn't.
 

Phiwise_

Adherent
Messages
29
Specialization
Technophiliacs & Technophiles
Still don't think you understand the scope of this problem, but alright. lol
I don't think you understand my commitment to solving it. I want to be the prairie doctor, taking off a limb with a hacksaw to stop gangrene.

Nothing. That's what I was saying. Banks would love it. Governments shouldn't.
I'm confused by this phrasing. Have you been trying to say the fed would love a cbdc, but shouldn't morally? Cuz yeah, that's what a "congressional blacklist" is for, I'd think? Or that the fed would like it if they were smarter, but won't for some reason? Or something else?
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Arch Disciple
Sanctuary legend
Messages
950
That bill seems fine all the way up until I read that non-governmental organizations can use these digital identity verification services. For something like credit reporting services, fine. It makes sense. (Although companies REALLY shouldn't be controlling credit-reporting in the first place, but I digress.) For anything else though, this looks kinda fucked.

I don't know. Maybe I misread this? Could someone else please read it and give a second opinion?
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,315
Wheeee! Another fucked bill by our glorious leaders in the senate. This time, it's the Cooper Davis Act! With a guest appearance by the DEA. How wonderful.

Todd Young has been added to the blacklist.
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,315
Eight new motherfuckers to add to the list... EIGHT. What the fuck, man? Should I just delete the entire Senate list and add instead, "All of them,"? Certainly would save me a LOT of time, considering how much shit these people push out onto us.

Names added:
Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]
Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]
Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Sen. Marshall, Roger [R-KS]
Sen. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK]
Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL]
Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,315
Another update to our wonderful list! >_> We are now talking about the Preventing Private Paramilitary Act of 2024.


This is not only a violation of the 2nd Amendment, it's an even more flagrant and direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble
You know what, it should be a felony to try to pass laws like this.
 

Houseman

Zealot
Sanctuary legend
Messages
1,074
You know what, it should be a felony to try to pass laws like this.
I do find it odd, how, when politicians attempt to violate the constitutional rights of people with laws that they create or pass, they don't get punished for it.

If I violate someone's rights, I get in trouble. If they do it, it's okay.
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,315
UPDATE: This is interesting.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-170/issue-51/house-section/article/H1365-1 said:
Two weeks ago, I talked about the changes House Republicans made
regarding how we fund the government.

[[Page H1480]]

We made targeted cuts to wasteful programs and developed a package that
is proof of that.
We looked at each need, and it was clear that the world is becoming a
more dangerous place. We made changes and decided on efforts that
include countering China, developing next-generation weapons, and
investing in the quality of life of our servicemembers.
I am proud to say that this bill strengthens our national security
and funds critical defense efforts. This package also includes other
key priorities. It continues our strong support of Israel, combats the
flow of illegal drugs, and fully funds medical research for cancer and
chronic diseases.
Against all odds, House Republicans refocused spending on America's
most crucial needs at home and abroad. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, here we are again. The swamp is back in full
force. We have a 1,000-page bill of $1.2 trillion filled with all
manner of spending priorities that are at odds with the American
people. That is what we have in front of us.
This bill is over 1,000 pages long. It contains hundreds of pages of
report language, 1,400 earmarks, and we have had about 24 hours to
review it. That is not the way to do business. The American people and
American families are the ones left holding the bag. This is business
as usual in the swamp.
Here is the deal to my Republican colleagues: You will own every
single bit of this. If you vote for this bill, you own it. DHS funding
contingent on signing H.R. 2 into law, that is what we did last year to
make sure our border will be secure. That is punted, so you own it.
Defunding Alejandro Mayorkas. We did that in our bill. This punts
that. It is no longer there. You own it.
Prohibiting mass parole and release of illegal aliens via the CBP One
app. We did that in our bill last year. This bill gets rid of it. You
own it. You own the continued mass parole of illegal aliens into our
country. You own that. That is the truth.
It was mass parole that led to a Venezuelan gang member coming into
the United States and killing Laken Riley. My Republican colleagues
cannot go campaign against mass parole and use the name of Laken Riley
because you pass a bill in her name when you fund the very policies
that led to her death.

{time} 1015

I hear all this, that we are going to increase ICE beds, and we are
going to increase the numbers for Border Patrol.
The increased numbers for Border Patrol will process more illegal
aliens. The increased number of beds for ICE will not be used because
there are memos in place by Alejandro Mayorkas, whom we impeached and
whom this bill will fund. Those ICE beds will not be filled. They won't
be used, and we know it.
We set out to prohibit DHS from fast-tracking asylum. This bill
doesn't do that.
We set out to make sure that this border would be secure and that you
could end what happened yesterday in Texas where 100 illegal aliens
bum-rushed our border, rolled over the Texas National Guard, fled into
this country, and went to Border Patrol to get released into the United
States.
That is what this bill continues to fund. Any of my Republican
colleagues who want to spend this year campaigning against open
borders, it is a laugh because today, if you vote for this abomination
of a bill, you will be voting to fund it. You will be voting to fund
the very policies that you will campaign against.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,315
I'm thinking of decommissioning the blacklist and, perhaps, instead running an explicit whitelist. I'll keep this thread around still though and use it to keep track of the newest bullshit laws that are getting passed and will rename the thread accordingly. The old list will also be kept for archival purposes.

When I first started the list, I knew it was going to expand, obviously, but this is getting ridiculous and depressing. I also like to offer solutions to people instead of just problems. So... It would seem to make more sense to offer a whitelist now instead of a blacklist.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Arch Disciple
Sanctuary legend
Messages
950
I'm thinking of decommissioning the blacklist and, perhaps, instead running an explicit whitelist.
Seems like a good idea to me. For one thing, it'll be much, much, shorter. That'll also be depressing in its own way, but much less work. Maybe you will have to change it to a light gray list in the future, sadly enough, but lets try a whitelist first. Now that I'm thinking about it though, wouldn't a whitelist require keeping a blacklist to know who hasn't done bad things?
 

Arnox

Master
Staff member
Founder
Messages
5,315
Seems like a good idea to me. For one thing, it'll be much, much, shorter. That'll also be depressing in its own way, but much less work. Maybe you will have to change it to a light gray list in the future, sadly enough, but lets try a whitelist first. Now that I'm thinking about it though, wouldn't a whitelist require keeping a blacklist to know who hasn't done bad things?
Ugh. That's correct... This is going to quickly turn into a full-time job. >_>
 
Top