Lord Ratner

The leveraging levels are concerning as well. Maybe more concerning than everything else. Right now that leverage only costs 4-6%. If the totally-transient-and-not-concerning inflation eventually forces the Fed to raise the rates... Remember that when the market is over-leveraged, everything loses during the correction. We got a fast-paced glimpse at this in March of 2020. Stocks, bonds, precious metals, crypto, REITS... they all tanked. We're more leveraged now than were were then. Only cash survives the onslaught.

Just watched "Nobody" and it was awesome. It's a John Wick knock off but I think I liked it more. A great addition to the "realistic" action hero genre.

Find out who the contract masters are. They'll be well-known through whatever online forum your pilots use. Read everything they post. Can them with questions. Learn every hustle out there, including the mechanics of how the contract enables the hustle. You want to know every loophole and strategy in depth, *then* decide what type of pilot career you want. I was lucky, my newhire mentor was a union contract compliance volunteer, so I was given a huge head start, but the information is out there. The three primary ways to exploit this knowledge: - Maximize pay (Raw earnings) - Maximize Time Off - Maximize efficiency (pay earned per actual hours flown) I prefer option three. The more flexible you are, the greater you can maximize the option you choose. This summer has been insane for 737 FOs. As a year-four FO I made 31k in May, 23k in June, and 20k in July. Add 16% for the 401k. In those three months I flew a total of about 70 hours, deadheaded for another 30, and went to annual training. That's somewhere around 5 hours of pay for every hour flown. If I chose option 1, I probably could have done ~30k in June and July. Option two is tough when the airline is undermanned. Live near a domicile, don't take the early upgrade, and know your contract. Each of those rules will immeasurably improve your Quality of Life.

Logic penalty. If you're into furry stuff, your horizon is pretty f'n expanded

While I agree with your main premise, that overwhelmingly the public is not nearly as insane as the political class (including all those who are professionally involved with the political world: media, analysts, govt, etc), the topic of CRT has shown that a dedicated minority (in this case, the Marxist-ish takeover of American Universities) can have an outsized effect. What is unclear is the long term efficacy of minority/intellectual movements. CRT is hitting a brick wall now that they attempted to spread in the realm of normal people, i.e. public K-12 school. But that won't necessary result in the removal of CRT garbage from the universities or corporate America. Conservatives are waking up to the notion that you can't just focus on elections and the supreme court. Steering the culture matters too. The current progressive movement is so overtly racist that it's hard to imagine long term success, but even the remote possibility is terrifying to anyone who focuses more on second and third order effects. I don't want my kids growing up in a more-racist world than I did. I've been saying that white supremacy would make a return since Obama's second term. There was a point somewhere during his presidency where the narrative on racism shifted from "I have a dream" to identity politics, specifically the notion that race was a central component of one's being, and should be celebrated rather than minimized. But only if you're brown. It was only a matter of time before a bunch of ignorant white people took that message literally and started celebrating their own skin color. That's why I fear a movement that thrives on MSNBC. Because isolated though it may be, the most powerful man on the planet parrots the talking points in nearly every speech, so it's not that niche.

ACSC masters program. Easy, set your own pace, moderately interesting material, very attentive instructors, and free.

Not unless it was incitement. A directive to cause harm ("go out and punish the cops for killing minorities!") Is not protected. A lie that others use to justify harm ("police are murdering minorities for sport!") is protected. You should brush up on the precedent, you're off base on a lot of this stuff.

No, it would otherwise be illegal for the government to block it. Have you read either of the actual decisions? Much easier that way.

Exactly. Prozac is not reading the case law, just citing his opinion as fact, while treating our citation of the case law as personal opinion. The question is whether the quotes by Nadler, Feinstein, and Psaki raise to the level of implied compulsion that Sullivan and Norwood prohibit. I believe dragging a CEO to D.C., berating them for hours, then warning them that there will be legislation to strip them of control over their property if they don't comply is pretty damn concerning. But it was also ok when the Obama administration went after journalists, so I'm not at all surprised that a more nuanced situation is not a concern to whatever the progressives stand for these days. I just can't find an underlying ideology that is consistent with the various party positions beyond "power is bad, success is stolen."

It's in this very thread. Two examples of legislators threatening government control in the absence of desired actions, which in this case, the desired action is the suppression of speech. The associated supreme court case that lays out the concept is also cited.

Hard to refute? You refuted it yourself. Examples of past censorship are exactly why we shouldn't be doing it now. You think propaganda and racist policy is why the US is a global superpower? Not personal and economic freedom? Let's do a little comparison... Which countries have racism and propaganda? All of them. So that's obviously not what made us different. But our system of limited government and unique conception of individual liberty are quite different. As for your many dodges, we can start with your fixed-wealth formulation for billionaire economics. You might have to go back a few pages since Sua Sponte vomited all over the thread.

That's factually incorrect. What you put on social media is *absolutely* protected by the first amendment if the government is the one trying to block it. Which is literally what we're arguing over, government issuing the threat of legislation to compel censorship by social media companies. Further, the government is free to put out a message. That's very different than suppressing someone else's message. That's such a basic concept I'm shocked I have to type it. Again, how did the government do with the Coronavirus messaging? You really want these clowns going through the internet and highlighting "misinformation" for deletion? Can't wait to hear your support for such action from the next republican administration.

Again, theory, not practice. In practice, the Progressives are arguing for a reality that cannot be accepted by many, many people. The systemic racism argument. Trans women/men *are* women/men. Gender confused children should be given hormones against their parents wishes. Your business should be compelled to violate your mainstream religious beliefs. Reparations. Gun control (literally a constitutional issue). Hate speech should be illegal. Defund the police. And the common response to these issues from the left is something akin to "well you're just taking that cause too literally... It means something different." Defund the police. Systemic racism. Patriarchy. Rape culture. Either name your movements in a way that reflects their true purpose, or so whining when you get called out on being insane based on your own words. But really we all know it's just a defense. When a movement like Defund the Police becomes obviously and incredibly unpopular with the normal voters out there, the extremists/activists scramble to repackage and redefine the movement using double speak and jargon. Slightly modifying the great Groucho Marx... What're ya going to believe, me or your own ears? It's not "misinformation" to accurately describe a toxic movement to the American people. Or the origins of a novel virus. Remember how well the bipartisan experts did on the lab leak story? Besides, don't you have some responses to reply to? You must have been a dodgeball superstar in your youth, the way you selectively respond here.

And this is understated, IMO. The benefits of a overpowered state government are purely hypothetical. In practice it falls apart entirely. Our society produces and provides *immensely* more to citizens and non-citizens alike than more restrictive governments. And the countries that mimic our model (such as the beloved Nordic countries the new American Socialists love to reference) do much, much better when they do. This doesn't even touch the security umbrella we provide that the "more generous" countries couldn't dream of supporting. The left in America is devolving into a faith-based party that has no concern for evidence, history, or statistics. It's all emotion, virtue-signaling, and shaming. That's fine, but it's never worked anywhere, and it certainly didn't produce the incredible wealth, health, and opportunity that Americans are uniquely privy to.

From Sullivan v Rhode Island: "It is true that appellants' books have not *67 been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions—the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation—the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable" and succeeded in its aim.[7] We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief.[8]" Additionally: "It is true, as noted by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, that Silverstein was "free" to ignore the Commission's notices, in the sense that his refusal to "cooperate" would have violated no law. But it was found as a fact—and the finding, being amply supported by the record, binds us— that Silverstein's compliance with the Commission's directives was not voluntary. People do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around, and Silverstein's reaction, according to uncontroverted testimony, was no exception to this general rule." But you just get off on being the contrarian here it seems, so I don't expect you to see the parallels.

How crazy a senator might be (and she's hardly near the top of that list) is irrelevant. If you can't see how that statement, from one of the highest levels of government possible, is demonstrative of the government threatening a private entity to do their bidding, then you're even drunker than I thought. The case law is clear, the influence does not need to be direct control. But that's really secondary to the point. We shouldn't be paying taxes for partisan political officials to scour the internet flagging speech they disagree with for removal, regardless of who has the final authority to decide.

From Diane Feinstein: “There are going to have to be some controls,” she said. “I’ve said, 'If you don’t control your platform, we’re going to have to do something about it.' I am hopeful that they will." You're not this stupid

That's all well and good, but I don't see any of it as a flaw. It's a necessary ingredient to change, and change is the basis for our continued growth and development. A lot of countries in Europe spend huge sums "protecting" people from the challenges you list, and they barely make a difference, other than to saddle the country with a ton of additional debt. There's a whole lot of people moving to non-coastal cities like Nashville and DFW, all which have their small-town suburbs surrounding them. You can read the currents and profit or fight them and drown, but we aren't an agrarian society so having 5 generations live in the same town isn't a viable option anymore. The monopoly stuff is all true, and it's why we have laws for it. But as you noted, the bigger problem is corporatism. As an example, Amazon gets tax cuts for opening new warehouses. Insanity. We need a constitutional ban on selective taxation that extends all the way to the local level. The greatest threat to a capitalist system is unfairness (of opportunity, not outcome). And no, it shouldn't be a luxury, and it's not. Buying the literal maximum amount of "stuff" with a given income is not a human right. Americans are some of the richest people in the world, and even the lower two quintiles can make choices. In most cases it's not a matter of "can they" but a matter of "do they care?" Just like littering, air pollution, organic produce, bike lanes, and fair-trade coffee, buying from mom and pop stores is a concern of the wealthy.

A lot of people want a lot of things. They get the rewards of their decisions. But their lives are still leagues ahead of the rest of the world, so while they aren't getting the very specific American Dream they desire, they are benefiting none the less. I have many relatives who refuse to move away from CA. They spend a lot of time complaining about how expensive it is, and the limited job opportunities. But when I tell them to leave... No way. Tough shit. They will flounder while millions of others move.

Crenshaw is the only one listed who is able to, and regularly does articulate the underlying principals behind his ideology. His podcast is excellent, and he has a terrific personality/sense of humor. He's a war hero, and he has a "gimmick" that will grab the attention of the reality-TV voters (eye patch). I'd like to see him run with Tim Scott, or someone similarly aggressive in their conservatism while bringing some not-just-another-white-guy diversity into it. It would be pretty badass of we elected a SEAL as president.

Well you have a habit of skipping the comments that do, so your contributions aren't particularly compelling either.

You are making a hypothetical without a basis in reality. Or to be more specific, you're leaving out some pretty big parts. In that scenario, Steel Mill A would end up with renewed competition if they raised the prices too much. For labor, lowering the wages simply pushes employees to work at other jobs (doesn't have to be another steel mill), which would crush Steel Mill A. "There are no other jobs" is a made-up condition. Where is there a single-company town? And if there is, why not move? You can see plenty of industries where exactly that happened. No one said capitalism is without suffering or pain. It's turbulent, but it's simply the best option out there. The gains are overwhelming, and for those who aren't the direct beneficiaries of the spoils of capitalism, the capitalist countries they live in provide *drastically* better living conditions for their poor/impoverished citizens. I prefer to shop at mom and pop stores now that I have the income to do so without hurting my financial goals. I'm not alone. Amazon has been around for less than a single generation, and it will take time for the changes to stabilize. But the arguments made are not new, and our system persists despite the many predictions of dystopian collapse.

The basis for those actions is literally the first sentence in the bill of rights. I'm not for the bleaching of religion from public spaces, but the concept of "separation of church and state" is quite clearly in the Bill of Rights, making it a part of the constitution.

This is one of the most mind-boggling arguments that I see all the time from the left. Wealth is created. It is not static. Yes, the basis for wealth and the monetary systems we use to support it are fundamentally systems of exchanging labor. But that labor value is not fixed. When you look at the billionaire class, overwhelmingly they are represented by people who created fundamental changes in how labor functions, freeing up incredible amounts of labor to be dedicated into other pursuits. That is the creation of additional labor/wealth. They did not take it from anybody, and to say so is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Now, if you want to get into a conversation specifically about wealth transfer in the banking and finance system, I think there is a very strong argument there for criticizing the manipulation of financial instruments to move wealth from one person to another. But that's not where most of the billionaires come from, and it's not the argument being made by the most visible politicians/activists on the left. Jeff Bezos is worth billions because millions of people wanted to exchange their wealth for his services. He didn't trap 100,000 people in a warehouse and collect their labor. You want to know why so many conservatives view the Democratic party as an existential threat? Because anyone who thinks about the economy the way you described clearly would destroy it through sheer incompetence alone.

That's not addressing the point. The founders had slaves and decried slavery, so contractions abound. You'll notice there's nothing in the Constitution about forfeiting all property "to the society" after you die. You asked how it squared with the idea of "created equal," implying a connection, but there is none. I gave examples of other advantages you can be born with. Created equal means created with the same rights and freedoms, from the government, as anyone else. Whether you inherit $10 billion dollars or nothing at all, you have a right to due process, a right to association, free speech, etc. Our system is immensely successful precisely because the founders didn't incorporate personal opinions of fairness into the government's control. Limited government. You have a right to give your children whatever is yours. You have the same rights and freedoms as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos had to make fortunes. Inherited wealth is not particularly enduring, and most of the billionaires/millionaires in America are self-made. So your argument is an emotional one, not a practical one.