A by-product of all the big government so many people seem enamored with lately: big bureaucracy. Expect more nameless and blameless officials "checking the wrong box" in the future.
Have you ever dealt with a large private health insurance, telecom, airline, banking, or other company?
They don't care about you either unless you're large enough that losing your business would actually matter. They don't care about you at all if it's impossible to lose your business (i.e. employer-provided health insurance, cable companies).
The US gov't is much bigger than all these corps combined. And they have multiple police forces. Oh, whats that? You don't like our service? Too bad, because there's no other game in town. And no, you're not allowed to disrupt the government.
Like owning a single share in a very large monopoly. Except you're both the shareholder and the customer. The share loses value everyday and the service could be better.
Holder claims that exposing the reason for denial of entry to the US
> "could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security."
Which on the face of it is true, because:
> The bogus national security claims invoked were even more outrageous because they were used to continue the persecution of someone the government knew to be innocent.
Exposing the truth makes us look bad. Making us look bad puts our bullshit, freedom harming programs at risk. We serve those programs, those programs are the most important thing (and not looking bad).
11 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 46.4 ms ] threadThey don't care about you either unless you're large enough that losing your business would actually matter. They don't care about you at all if it's impossible to lose your business (i.e. employer-provided health insurance, cable companies).
This is a ridiculous claim.
What do you call voting?
The choice between "big government" and "big business" is a false dichotomy, if that's what you're getting at.
What is the third choice? Anarchy? What if I prefer not to be dragged out of my house and beaten to death by a mob?
> "could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to national security."
Which on the face of it is true, because:
> The bogus national security claims invoked were even more outrageous because they were used to continue the persecution of someone the government knew to be innocent.
Exposing the truth makes us look bad. Making us look bad puts our bullshit, freedom harming programs at risk. We serve those programs, those programs are the most important thing (and not looking bad).