ViperMan

Rapid, chaos-driven system-level changes always happen. The 20th century alone is replete with them. Rare? Maybe the chances of any given individual living through one is rare, but that is a matter of timing, location, and perspective. The biggest one happening right now is the dissolution of our monetary system. In ordinary times, this would be a huge deal. Right now, we're setting ourselves up (and being set up) for catastrophe.

You're an advocate for MMT. There. That's a basis for an entire system of political and economic organization which is antithetical to America's. It's "free lunch" theory. You project a lot of knowledge about it and do seek to provide others "education" without being able to sufficiently explain it or elucidate your position yourself, without recourse to some other external youtube video of dubious origin/sourcing.

How?

It's pedantic to just come back and say you need to look up what democracy is supposed to be (though you do), but you probably won't so I'll give you two sentences about what ours is here: we have a democratically elected government wherein three coequal branches of government share power. This was done to avoid what you'd like - which is a tyranny of the majority. Our system makes it impossible for 51 people to tell 49 others how to live. Sorry about it, but your misconception of this as anti-democratic is uncompelling. Likewise, appeals to what "polls" show Americans want are lackluster arguments. The only poll that matters is the one that takes place at the ballot box on voting day. Most Americans (including me up until last week) don't even know what Roe v Wade actually established. Spoiler alert, I looked it up, and Roe v Wade did not establish a woman had a right to choose to have an abortion. Roe v Wade held the following: It's amazing what you can learn when you read the actual decisions. In practice, this may be implemented in a manner that allows a woman to tell her physician that she needs an abortion and be granted one, but the case does not establish a "woman's right to choose." It absolutely does no such thing. So polls about subjects Americans have no, or limited, or misinformed levels of understanding can be safely disregarded. And more than that, the court is supposed to call balls and strikes; to keep the legislature and executive branches in check - not to express the will of the people. Seriously, I can't believe this has to even be stated, let alone defended. Read up on what the difference is between due process and substantive due process is. They deal with two esoteric legal concepts. I included the relevant text from Thomas' opinion since you are either haven't read, are misapprehending the case, or intentionally misconstruing it to support your viewpoint. Thomas isn't saying birth control should be made illegal. He's saying the basis upon which that case, and others like it, was decided needs to be re-evaluated. You can disagree about that, but there it is for you in black and white. On Griswold specifically, Connecticut was the only state in the union that had outlawed contraception, so that case really was about bringing an outlier back into line with the "thrust" of the rest of the country. Hence, gasping about how this case is somehow now endangered ignores both the historical context (49 to 1) and the temporal reality that it was decided before Roe (1965). Duh! Finally, the liberal dissent from the opinion is farcical. Out of one corner of their mouth, they lament that the majority in Dobbs reads history "all the way back to the 13th century (the 13th!)," while simultaneously, they ignore the fact that the case which kicked off this whole thing, Roe, in fact discussed Aristotelian philosophy, the Pythagorean school, ancient Jewish tradition, etc...in short, they need to get real. They are completely disingenuous and insincere in their overall approach to this case. Also note their parenthetical exclamation. It reads more like an activist's polemic than it does a serious legal treatise seeking to deal fairly with the law and the majority opinion.

I find your reasoning fair. I just don't think it was the court's purview to unilaterally redefine it. Especially considering that its redefinition quite literally flips its meaning on its head. Again, it's extending benefits to people who were never intended to receive them. Maybe that necessitates revisiting the basis on which those benefits were first enacted. Probably does. Should whites be given access to affirmative action programs designed for blacks? How about able-bodied access for handicapped parking spaces? What about men getting women's sports scholarships? How 'bout social security payments for those who never worked? The point is things have their proper place and domain. Generally agree, I just don't think the government should give you a $ break for whatever relationship you happen to be in. That said, there is a difference between recognizing something, vs officially sanctifying it. Polygamy hasn't been a part of our modern tradition for a long time (unless you're part of some fringe religion).

Who said anything about the bible? Jesus. You guys have a hard time absorbing (or even recognizing) any view that deviates from your own, narrow, predefined narrative about what constitutes "the other sides'" opinion. Islamic, Hindu, European, African, Asian, Japanese, Polynesian, and Indian cultures all conceived as marriage as between a man and woman. You're listening skills are akin to the kid hammering a square peg into the round hole: if it doesn't fit into something I think I heard, pound on it harder. My point is simply that the court had/has no business altering the definition of a bygone human tradition. Nope. Of course they can and do. So no one need disagree, nor should they be denied benefits. The real solution from my perspective is to remove tax benefits from marriage. If kids become involved, then this can be adjudicated with the use of child tax credits or something along those lines. I got nothing against gay people. Thanks.

I hear the "woe is me/us" coming through, but honestly, what are you advocating for in your post? Should we just pay for everyone's school? It's simple logic to see how that would fail, right? I mean we already have an entire generation of people who took out loans, got degrees (went to college), and are now in the workforce (or not) complaining about how they are getting crushed by student loan debt. If the return on investment was positive, there would be no issue paying all those loans back. Trouble is, they ARE having trouble. Doesn't that highlight the folly of that entire idea to you? How is over-spending on college going to fix this problem in the end??? Seriously. I want to know what the answer is. If the US government got back more than what they put in, then I'd be all for it because in the end it'd mean less taxes. Is it not implicit that we (the people) are not getting our $$$ worth??? This is all valid, and I'd be more supportive of "forgiving" (transferring) these types of loans. Though, if we're going to make a broad sweeping accusation of fraud that was committed by the Univ of PHX et al, then I want the attorney general/DOJ involved. I want people arrested, tried, convicted, their assets seized, and finally sentenced to prison for defrauding individuals and the US government. But it seems to me that without this follow through by the DOJ, it really amounts to nothing more than a talking point for advocates of free college.

People are known by their actions, not their thoughts. Your desire to control what is in someone else's head is tyrannical. Yes, it does actually. Being handicapped is an immutable trait - only handicapped people are allowed to park in handicapped spaces. See, there are rules and laws that apply to certain subsets of people based on certain characteristics. Marriage, like it or not, was crafted to support relationships between men and women (i.e. child rearers) for the express purpose of providing economic benefits for those people who had children so their bank accounts wouldn't be broken and their families left destitute if someone happened to die. And to address your statement re the thought police: "some thoughts are actually so fucked that they should not be allowed." Let's just say I rest my case. Your comparison is invalid. To address this, you need to come up with an a priori reason why some people should be enslaved but not others. I don't think you or I or anyone else could ever make that convincing argument. I have provided a reason why marriage was previously defined as such - why society defined it as such - but no such reason has been provided as to why it should be extended to a separate class of relationships for which it was never designed. That's the point. Handicapped laws apply to handicapped people. Marriage laws apply to men and women - or so they did. Having that position isn't necessarily bigoted, though it certainly can be depending, even though you would have us believe it is.

100% this is an oil / natural gas war.

Dude you left off the active clause of @brabus point - which was that people he knows can disagree with something but not be actively working to disabuse anyone of their rights. Lurking behind your post is the thought police. Because you don't believe what I believe, you are an immoral person. I am the only one who gets to determine what is true. Of course we all agree that discriminating against people based on their immutable characteristics is bad. The disagreement in this case is that benefits which society historically conferred (effectively) only on mothers and fathers shouldn't be extended to cover anyone else who decides they want them. It's not even a moral position in my case - it's a legal/financial one.

This conception of other people is not fully "covering." i.e. there are other reasons to oppose gay marriage besides bigotry. But such is nuance, which is not popular these days. The thing about marriage is that it has been around since before time. Marriage between a man and a woman was always a thing, and it was enacted for reasons - to ensure children were cared for by those who made them. This tradition cuts across cultures, societies, epochs, civilizations, etc. It just so happens that in our modern conception of a state, we have elected to legally "codify" marriage, and confer social and economic benefits to those who get married, but that is secondary to the innate fact that it has historically been only understood to be that relationship between a man and a woman. Numerous religious traditions have their reasons for teaching whatever they want to teach about religion. I don't subscribe to any of it. I just think that redefining marriage in order to conform to the "due process" and/or "equal protection" clauses of our constitution was done on dubious grounds and is blinkered to historical tradition. IMO, the correct way to approach it would have been to define something called "civil unionship" and then let that legal umbrella cover everything from "marriage" between straights to "marriage" between gays. Then, let the different churches sort it all out how they best saw fit. All the legal benefits would accrue and people could keep their bigotry where it belonged: within their own backyards. Don't get me wrong: people should generally be allowed to do what they want, but in this case we chose the culture war path and decided to allow everyone to park in the handicapped spot; in effect, nullifying the very reason why it exists in the first place.

Bill Barr has quite a good take on the whole Trump phenomenon and the end of his presidency. I didn't know what a statesmen he was. https://www.hoover.org/research/more-one-damn-thing-bill-barr

That is some level 9 satire, bro. If it's not, well, let's just say everyone is less well off than before all this inflation hit (https://www.axios.com/2022/06/15/what-workers-really-want-raises-that-beat-inflation). People are spending more money because prices are higher and they have to. Wages are not keeping pace with price inflation (https://news.wttw.com/2022/06/08/inflation-overpowers-city-minimum-wage-hike). Also, logic that says "because we're full, it's all good" ignores all the scheduling optimization that goes into creating an airline schedule. Remember, all seven major US airlines have reduced their flying this summer. The reason is immaterial. Delta could fly one line per day, and every single seat would be filled. That has nothing to do with the prevailing economic undercurrent.

Gas has always been more expensive in Europe. European nations are not, and have never been, energy independent - we have been. The US has all the energy we need within our own borders, and we have historically been a net exporter of energy. We purchase from others for good strategic and other economic reasons. ALL of the Trump stimulus was bi-partisan, and ALL of the shut down happened under Trump. COVID was under control when Biden took the reigns. Biden's stimulus was fully partisan and had zero support from the right - it was a democrat giveaway. Here is an economist credibly arguing that inflation is about double what it would be, save for Biden's extra stimulus: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-inflation-economy-what-you-need-to-know/id1570872415?i=1000558019343 Agreed, but our current economic conundrum is not solely due to the COVID crisis. There were other mistakes dating all the way back in 2008 (i.e. not allowing a full crash to happen). Latent effects from that event have still not fully cleared the system, and someday they must, lest we continue hurtling down the economic black hole we're staring into. Banks had (and have) stopped foreclosing on properties that defaulted during the 2008 recession. What is the net effect of this??? Spoiler alert: inflation. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-bubble-era-home-mortgages-are-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-2019-02-25?mod=article_inline "In 2012, just 2% of all these delinquent borrowers had not paid for more than five years. Two years later that number had skyrocketed to 21%. Why? Mortgage servicers around the country had discontinued foreclosing on millions of delinquent properties. Homeowners got wind of this and realized they could probably stop making payments without any consequences whatsoever. So they did." https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-ghost-of-the-housing-bubble-still-haunts-the-home-mortgage-market-2020-01-15 "By mid-2010, mortgage servicers around the nation had a strategy of supporting housing markets by not placing expensive foreclosed properties on the active market. They had also begun to take the next step of cutting back on foreclosing long-term delinquent properties." "As I have reiterated many times, mortgage servicers have consistently maintained this strategy of not foreclosing on jumbo mortgages. What seems crystal clear is that the vast majority of long-term delinquent jumbo mortgages have not been foreclosed and are still outstanding. Many jumbo borrowers have not paid for years. As a result, the jumbo-mortgage market now is a ticking time bomb."

Could be a good path, depending. No opinion on that. If I wasn't already where I was and I wanted to fly "Air Force", given my personal goals, it may have appealed to me. Yes, the Air Force will shit on you, but, in the end, you'll learn to love it.

Don't take my word for it. It's Harvard macro-economist Greg Mankiw who says that money is a medium of exchange. Also, logic. Logic says it's a medium of exchange. People can become indebted to one another, of course, but the primary function of money is not to become indebted to one another. It's to facilitate transaction. Also, it's cool for the government to run a debt. I didn't say the government needed to run a surplus. I said there are real limits on how much currency can be printed. That's what I said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary#First_paid_salary Salaries were first paid as a means of exchange for labor and work - a medium, dating back to perhaps 10,000 BC. "...widely circulating but erroneous belief that banks create money out of nothing..." https://voxeu.org/article/banks-do-not-create-money-out-thin-air Private banks do not get to create money. They can issue loans, but the amount of loans they are able to initiate have real limits. Do you honestly think my local Wells Fargo branch can loan out $50 trillion dollars? Why or why not? How about infinity dollars? Can they loan out infinity dollars? To themselves? It seems like you might be getting wrapped up around technicalities about how money works in our modern day system. It's complicated, sure. M2, etc, are all esoteric concepts to lay people - which is your audience on this message board. Anyway, I have a feeling this thread will be hard to keep on the rails.

Welcome @Random Guy. Might want to collapse some of these posts as it will likely generate a more coherent response. First and foremost, money is a medium. That is, it is anything that will mediate a transaction between parties. Money is what money does. You posted a lot of references. Likely none of which (honestly) will be viewed or fully read by the crowd writ large. What is "the theory" that you purport is false? It would help us all if you would just clearly state it and then people can fire away. I'm certain this is true from a technical vantage, but any nation that issues currency most certainly has real limits on how much currency can be initiated. Just ask Zimbabwe. "89.7 sextillion percent year-on year..." The United States occupies a highly privileged position because we happen to be the world's current reserve currency, emphasis on current. From the book Exorbitant Privilege: Even more critical: We get to click 'print' and get an equivalent amount of goods and services. This is enormously important to our status in the world. No one else gets to do that. Consider the implications of that and you'll begin to see the liability we are building in terms of our real contribution to the world, and support we can provide for ourselves, if that status is lost. If you are interested in the answer, I recommend the book The Coming Generational Storm. It gets to the core of your question, "why does the government need to balance its checkbook like an individual?" In short, the answer is that on the scale of your concern, an individual is like a generation. The concept of inter-generational accounting is introduced to help capture and illuminate those concerns. Along the way, I also learned quite a bit about concepts such as imputed income, along with other interesting facts. Such as how in different circumstances, a lesser-earning spouse is actually paying a 100% marginal tax rate on their earnings due to their rights spouses have to each other's social security benefits. Stuff few people know, but if they did, there would be plenty who would be justified in leaving the workforce altogether. An important topic, to be sure.

Absolute fire 🤣

Fair enough. That seems both extreme and clownish, but fair enough. Either way, I'm not the one who is drawing an arbitrary line, you are. I fully accept "early" "elective" abortion because I realize life is messy and people eff up and want an "undo" button. I think that's pretty fucking ugly, but I accept it. That is a pro-"choice" and pro-"woman" position - whatever the hell that means. Hence, I am not asserting control over women's bodies at the moment of conception, though that also seems to be a favored fallback of the left. Anyway, there are two distinct arguments being made here. The first is when a unique human life exists - that happens at conception, and is scientifically unambiguous. The second, is a value-based argument about when a "human life" exists. You're conflating the scientific argument with the political one. And likening cancer to a human really is a pretty weak tangent. It sounds like something a middling 8th grader would write in a C- position essay, but I digress. Here is your arbitrary line. Upon what basis are you considering these (15w vs 20w / 20w vs 15w) qualitatively different? I would like to hear it articulated. Can you even tell which is which? Personally, I can't draw a scientific distinction, and neither can anyone else, frankly. As one steps backwards through this continuum towards conception, it's not possible to draw a clean line until you get all the way back to the discrete event itself. That is all scientific. It has nothing at all to do with your value-based judgements. On the value side of the argument, personally I would have a hard time hearing an argument as to why these fetuses should be valued differently, but that is at least the proper arena for the argument, and people are free to make value-based judgements and advocate for them within those boundaries. They are not free to make scientific distinctions. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it seems to me that people who are pro-abortion really NEED there to be some sort of scientific distinction present in order to be able to morally justify their position. That's why I think there is so much focus on the use of the term fetus, zygote, the idea of consciousness, the ridiculous red herring of cancer having it's own DNA, etc. As long as you can name it something different, it is something different, right? That which we call a rose... The impossibility of drawing a clear scientific difference between a 15-week-old fetus, 9-week-old fetus, and a 20-week-old fetus does not give you the argument, and it's really not even a point. You know as well as I do that having eyeballs or not having eyeballs isn't what endows you with your humanity. See the above. I don't believe any of that, so let me state it clearly for you: I think elective abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, which is what constitutes abortion rights activists' and the "Left's" position (along with a large majority of democrats) in this country, is an unacceptable moral problem and it needs to be resisted and ultimately outlawed. Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and needs to be overturned, if for no other reason than to re-establish the supreme court's legal credibility. The event called "birth" holds no special status in determining whether or not a human being is present. A "human" is present at some point between conception and birth. I am fine with medical "abortions" in all circumstances wherein the mother's life is at stake. That said, the term abortion is misused in these cases and using the word only muddles the water. It's the left intentionally overloading a term in order to get the camel's nose into the tent. A fundamental part of the confusion surrounding this issue boils down to word games being played by the pro-abortion side.

Hey Socrates. No one is confused about what life is or if sperm are alive - it's not arbitrary. A sperm is not a human. An egg is not a human. Both are living. Sexually dimorphic species genetic material needs to come together in order to form a unique organism. The line of what constitutes a human is clear and is completely and totally unambiguous. The fact that a zygote doesn't have full human form at all stages of development is not a point in your column of the argument, though it is the fundamental tenet of what all pro-abortion advocates rest their argument upon. The argument is about when elective abortion should be allowed and when it should be disallowed. That's where the disagreement lies. Everything else is an attempt to muddle the other sides' argument.

No. Framing something like this from such a one-sided perspective (i.e. money is debt) doesn't illuminate very much. You may as well re-write your whole post from the perspective that money is credit - it would be as valid and would make about the same amount of sense. Yeah, a post like this in the Russia/Ukraine discussion board is gyro-tumbling, but is seems you knew that??? Make a new thread if you want to discuss monetary theory.

LOL the broads wearing masks on a zoom call.🤣

So, "manchester"? Or not?

Update: No new opinions are circulating within the Supreme Court. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/11/alito-abortion-draft-opinion-roe-00031648?utm_source=pocket-newtab

I've seen so many people here make the claim that the right is attempting to outlaw all abortion - in this thread, I've yet to see anyone make that argument, though there have been plenty of straw men who have had the absolute shit beat out of them. In fact, most folks who come from the right seem to be saying that there are limited circumstances under which they agree abortion should be legal, so I really don't see the hyper focus on this extreme case (i.e. IUDs = abortion = 8-mos-pregnant abortion) as anything but an attempt to muddy the water, create overlap where there is none, and avoid the conversation. Perhaps it would be best (for the country) if the conversation would distinguish between "medical" abortions and "elective" abortions. Most of us here (I think) tend to agree on what would be considered "medical" abortions. Really, circumstances make them both categorically and morally different - in the same way killing someone in combat is morally different from murder - and this is the point that I think gets lost in all the back and forth. On the left, abortion is sometimes a difficult "choice" - which it certainly is in cases of rape, incest, last night's one night stand, etc. On the right, a normal pregnancy at 8 months, which somehow becomes inconvenient, is most certainly not a choice. Is either of those positions a misrepresentation? There is a qualitative difference between a single celled human and one which has taken on a human form, heart beat, nervous system, has begun dreaming, etc. All fair people recognize this, even if they can't provide a mathematical proof. Obviously life is a continuum, and it is difficult (probably impossible) to draw clean lines anywhere. The democrats currently in office support elective abortion, in all cases, up to birth. It is their platform. That's a moral problem in our country, and also happens to be wholly unrelated to the state of "tax payer funded paid maternity leave" for mothers. That's where the thrust of the opposition lies - not on disallowing plan B, but on stopping the governor of VA along with other radical organizations who have co-opted previously laudable movements from enacting radical policy positions in order to assert status or maintain grasp of expired political power.