Volume would be speaker amplitude not rates.

They do - oxymetolazine/afrin nasal spray. Just don’t use it for more than 2 days as it causes rebound congestion. Pseudoephedrine in allegra/claritin d or in sudafed would also help. Pseudoephedrine is OTC but always behind the counter and has to be requested because people make meth from it. Phenylephrin has been shown not to work - avoid. Avoid in evening as it’ll keep you awake. If you really need to clear out use a nasal saline spray or neti pot.

We’re not in a recession because imports are subtracted from GDP. Since Imports have plummeted with tariffs, gdp data gives the false impression of a growing economy. Had imports been unchanged we would’ve had negative GDP reported.

They clearly were fired for critical opinions about the 2 vanity projects. If their expert opinions were used to help win lawsuits to prevent them from happening it’d be hundreds of millions of dollars saved.

Anyway all value is subjective, even dollars. If you are trying to say fine arts are not worth it then dont be a coward, come out and say it instead of trying to imply it by “just asking questions” Mr Tucker.

Executive Order 6102

If it can be taken from you with the stroke of a pen, then it isn’t yours. Gold financial products are useful speculative assets but not for calamity insurance.

A good pediatrician will do this. They can identify issues like varicocele that is stunting the growth of one of your testicles and recommend follow up which your parent can then ignore until you complain as an adult of an achy ball to find out it’s 1/3 the size of the other and the rest of the mass there were veins which when cut out instantly relieved the symptoms and laid bare your shrimp ball that was choked out and its lost opportunity for glory.

It can cut both ways though, it was used in the South in favor of racists.

Yes. For those who consider it wasteful spending, consider that a lot of problems are not fixable by just throwing more money at them. There’s a saying that “9 women can’t make a baby in one month” even though 1 woman can in 9. Many ills of society are as much about political/social motivation, entrenched opponents/regulatory capture, NIMBYism, etc and not problems that you can fix just by spending more. There’s also the concept of a “marginal dollar” - spending one more dollar in an important area that already has a lot of money (and has problems that aren’t really addressed by just having more money) may not be as impactful as a less important area where that dollar would go a lot further.

Kidnapped at gunpoint

Selectively. If there are enough laws on the books that everyone is in violation all the time you can justify taking down anyone at any time.

You have a good point but may not have an appreciation for what that means for the individual soldiers. I recommend this legal eagle vid. Even if they were clearly in the right in refusing the order (which they obviously are in this case) - do you think there is any chance they would get a fair trial with this regime in power?

Imo the check on this is impeachment and prosecution of the president and officials.

What about the face scans through TSA and customs? I assumed those were going into every 3 letter agencies databases.

Thats because apple adds 30% if you buy through the ios app.

Prisoners dilemma, but in this case we’ve already seen how the other prisoner (Texas) has acted. Should we take 3 years while they go free? Or make it 2 and 2?

The Democratic Party ran someone 19 years younger than trump and you used the wrong gender pronoun for her.

I was going to say vimeo but checked the dates to make sure I remembered right - looks like it was up even before youtube 2004 vs 2005.

Not a single one of those (collected over years) is as grandiose as those mentioned in the article from a single speech Trump made. If you had any desire to participate in good faith you’d acknowledge there is a 2 orders of magnitude difference between total false/misleading claims and a cursory review of the worst statements differ to the point of insanity.

Ok I’ll take back coward since you came out and said it. I don’t want to hash out the value of government funding the arts here as others have written elsewhere on both sides of the subject more persuasively than either of us will do justice here. Suffice to say we likely differ in opinion.

I’ll research and give you an honest answer to your question if you first answer this: Why do you think Trump fired them?

Yes! Call the bluff and appojnt someone before Aug 2.

Justifying the existence of the government commission in terms of a tangible benefit to the public would dispel doubts that it is worth keeping... A point of the question is that disapproving of bullshit firings is not enough to justify a government commission: we may need a separate justification to understand this is absolutely worth fighting for & that would make a more compelling reason to oppose Trump over it.

No one was talking about axing the commission until you showed up. It is not obvious to me from your question the point was about justifying the existence of the commission in a thread about about the firing of the heads of the commission because they had negative review of the 2 vanity projects because sacking the heads does not change its funding status.

We shouldn’t have to state our inner thoughts or explain ourselves to pose a question.

You certainly don't have to but then it forces others to fave to read into your thoughts to respond. You say I think I'm psychic but it only comes across that way when you're not sharing what your thoughts are or explaining. We've moved past that because you've laid out what your thoughts were. Since you have I don't think it really matters where you stand on the reason for the firings because it seems you're saying the firing is justified because the commission doesn't yield objective value (while at the same time acknowledging the firing has no impact on the commissions spending).

Anyway I did some research, here's a response to your initial question:

• The commission has ensured that taxpayer-funded buildings and infrastructure contribute to the civic environment - often preventing costly design mistakes or preserving assets that would be expensive (or impossible) to recover once lost. This gets to my point earlier that they oppose monstrosities like "Arc de Trump" which is something I think you'd agree with is wasteful.
• They had a pivotal role in transforming Washington, D.C. into a coherent national capital. In the 1900s, Washington’s core was disorganized - eg a railroad ran across the National Mall. The CFA pushed a blueprint to create the National Mall into a broad, open vista linking the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial. They oversaw the planning of entire complexes like the Federal Triangle and guided a consistent architectural style. This is not just subjective. They helped create a functionally organized city that accommodates public gatherings, national ceremonies, and tourism. Millions visit these well-planned public spaces each year. At the very least, this "objectively" brings millions of dollars from international visitors.
• the CFA played a central role in the creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial which is one of the most acclaimed war memorials in the world. Regardless of your view of the military, monuments like that help give it the impression of respect and honor to soldiers which is important for recruitment. They also review designs for military medals and insignia like the purple heart and medal of honor. Here's a fun idea - under the next 6 commissioners what do you think the next military medal will look like? A gilded profile of Trump?

The CFA mandate is rooted in the understanding that architecture and urban design are matters of public interest, not just subjective taste. You asked for something non-subjective? The buildings are physical objects standing right there in DC, what is more objective and concrete than actual concrete?

Edit - to be fair I did see spending that seems low valued and pretty loosely aligned to their mandate. $400 million for 2024 for these recipients seems pretty steep. But to say there's no value in the CFA goes too far and funding of the CFA is a different topic entirely that what is focused on by the OP article which is about Trump firing what is supposed to be an independent organization because he didn't like their report. The government benefits from independent, non-political groups to ground itself in reality and the inference to be gained from the article is that Trump is bulldozing that concept.