memfree

It isn’t part of the government, but was designated an official federal depository library . There are over 1000 such libraries, but archive.org is the most ‘digital’.

Okay, so explain this: why can I archive various random pages on congress.gov, but when I try to look at archives for the 14th amendment, I get complaints that I can’t access it from ‘this site’ (archive.org)? I can view the live page, but I can’t archive it and then see the result. I’m also having issue archiving the current Article 1 page (as mentioned further under this post).

Edit: To me, the 14th amendment issue hints that: a) that page in particular requires cookies and b) it intentionally won’t load for/from archive.org – but this is not consistent for other pages so it seems extra fishy.

Help! I tried to archive https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/ – but it won’t show up in archive.org. It tells me I can go to:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20250806054229/https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/ but when I look at the URL, it seems to be redirecting to July 21st (https://web.archive.org/web/20250721170235/https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/), which does not look like the live page. When I try to dif, I see the July page, too.

Did the government break wayback, too?

This you?

you vote with your money in a more efficient way than any election

If you look, I was the person explaining that per Doctorow collective action is good. You’re replying to a post where I said, “…or even vote Z, then together the difference will matter.” Maybe you meant to reply to someon else, or maybe you’re a sock puppet that forgot to change accounts.

If I may chime in, like Sundray, I am used to the author’s style, which preempts critics by acknowledging the difficulty before getting to the positive. He’s had enough people tell him ‘recycling plastic is a joke!’ to now start by saying, yes, I know, BUT you should still do it and then he’ll get to the positive. He’s not suggesting people are foolish for doing it, he’s simply letting the reader know that it ought to work better than it does and the failure is NOT on the citizenry, but on the deep pockets trying to escape blame. He wants you to know how they profit off the backs of the working class and he wants us to fight back together (and to keep recycling).

Boycotts work because boycotts are collective . That’s his point. If you get enough of society together to boycott X, or to call their government out on Y, or even vote Z, then together the difference will matter. What doesn’t matter is a bunch of people buying an item, while you are making your own private ‘boycott’. Personally, I ‘boycott’ youtube. Guess what? They don’t care. They have enough eyeballs that they don’t miss me at all.

P.S. I was happy that Paramount+ asks “why?” you cancel your subscription because I got to explain it was due to the 60 minutes settlement and firing Colbert… but I doubt they care that 1 person stopped giving them money over that.

Ask, “What about the Epstein Files?” as the first volley.

Compared to who? Pelosi? Trump?

Oliver is not qualified.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least 35 years old;
• be a resident in the United States for at least 14 years.

as if he’d ever sun bathe

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?” – George Orwell (book link)

Sure, you’re getting worked up about her misrepresenting the number of illegals, but I’m over here all incensed that she’s saying a person is just ONE meal for an alligator? As if gators wouldn’t join in and make a party of it? How dare she! An adult alligator will eat 20 pounds of food a week during warm weather but can go for weeks without eating during the winter. That means a generic 100 pound human should feed at least 3-4 gators (or up to 5 if we don’t count bones as food). Suggesting a person is only one alligator meal is like suggesting a person isn’t unemployed once they’re run out of unemployment benefits – and who’d be stupid enough to suggest that?