It's a shame they stopped teaching history, because the collapse of the Spanish empire is a great example of what can happen when the laws of financial physics stop being followed...
Unfortunately, the only other option is a massive sovereign debt crisis, which might be the only option.... But if that's going to be an option, it needs to be an option that in the end results in a balanced budget because otherwise the United States will just become a backwater...
Well there's certain things that they do have an influence over, and every candidate being presented would rack up more debt by signing extravagant budgets.
Considering just how much of the economy government spending is, that has a direct impact on the economy. Now, the actual numbers would look a lot worse if you spend less Federal money, but the actual economy would get better because the private sector wouldn't be fighting the government for those resources...
Considering just how much of the economy government spending is, that has a direct impact on the economy. Now, the actual numbers would look a lot worse if you spend less Federal money, but the actual economy would get better because the private sector wouldn't be fighting the government for those resources...
And I hate to say it but this isn't a partisan thing. The numbers were just as fake under Donald Trump as they were under Joe Biden or Barack Obama. Things have been in decline since the 1970s. Ronald Reagan I've got a lot of credit for making it appear that the decline had stopped for a bit, but in reality he quadrupled the federal debt, and started the federal government in the US down the path of perpetual deficit spending to try to pretend the United States of the 1980s was the same United States as the 1950s.
Also Jamie Oliver: "okay, now we're just going to slather that with some delicious olive oil"
Seems like you would end up in a situation where people might not even want to invest anymore. The risk of having to pay tax for money you don't have and never had would be a pretty good incentive not to invest in anything in the United States at least.
Actually, when you think about it if he gets everything that he wants here all it's going to do is and ensuring that the mega rich get richer and the middle class gets destroyed. The ultra Rich can just move their money out of the country...
Actually, when you think about it if he gets everything that he wants here all it's going to do is and ensuring that the mega rich get richer and the middle class gets destroyed. The ultra Rich can just move their money out of the country...
Sometimes I wish there was an emoji representing laughing hilariously then crying in sorrow.
People who say "I don't need privacy, I have nothing to hide" haven't thought about it hard enough.
In Burlington Ontario they found a basement where 25 different people were living. Not a pod in sight, just a whole bunch of traditional beds in way too small of a space.
It makes a lot more sense when you realize that none of them were locals. None of them intended to raise their families in 25 bed basements, they intended to come to ontario, make as much money as they could, and then send it back to their home countries where their families could live like kings thanks to the currency differential. Meanwhile, locals are competing in the same labor market.
All the while Galaxy brained retards keep going "muh GDP" as if they get paid in gdp and not in wages.
It makes a lot more sense when you realize that none of them were locals. None of them intended to raise their families in 25 bed basements, they intended to come to ontario, make as much money as they could, and then send it back to their home countries where their families could live like kings thanks to the currency differential. Meanwhile, locals are competing in the same labor market.
All the while Galaxy brained retards keep going "muh GDP" as if they get paid in gdp and not in wages.
Nostr has groups. It's kind of a broken implementation though, my understanding is that the head of the group has to approve every post. After exploding heads went down, they briefly had a freeforum on nostr, but I think it fell apart when the upkeep was just too much.
Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. You're misunderstanding the nature of legal arguments in documents like these.
The way that legal documents tend to be written is they will go through a number of different arguments to win the case, and those arguments can be mutually exclusive. For example, there are plenty of legal briefs out there that will argue mutually exclusive things such as "I didn't do it and if I did do it it wasn't against the law". You make the arguments that you think are going to win, not the arguments that you politically would like to be the ones to win.
The lawyer's jobs are not to win the case by the most politically acceptable means possible, it's to win the case. If they don't win the case on states rights grounds, then they will move on to other defenses including the fact that the states argument doesn't match with the text of the law.
Let's say that you were charged with a crime, and you didn't do the crime and you know that. Great, if you can win on that then you should. But what about if you can't win on that? If you didn't do it, but you couldn't get doubt in the evidence to that finishing line to prove reasonable doubt, are you just going to accept going to jail? Or in the event that the jury finds you did do the thing, are you going to make all of the arguments other than you didn't do it, such as if it was a murder, that it was in self-defense, or that there was no mens rea or any one of a bunch of different things that could win you the case, even though the truth is you didn't do the thing?
For people who aren't used to reading legal documents, it's pretty jarring, but again -- your side's lawyers want you to win, and you by definition cannot win unless you make the argument. If you have an incompetent counsel, and they don't make arguments that would let you win the case, even if the judge believes it you should get off, the judges job is to be an impartial arbiter and so they can't help you -- you just lose the case even though you shouldn't have. Also, if you make those different arguments they leave you open for the ability to appeal later because maybe you can ask for a second crack at the bat when it comes to the stuff I constitutional issues. If you don't raise the constitutional issues during the case, by definition you cannot appeal.
The way that legal documents tend to be written is they will go through a number of different arguments to win the case, and those arguments can be mutually exclusive. For example, there are plenty of legal briefs out there that will argue mutually exclusive things such as "I didn't do it and if I did do it it wasn't against the law". You make the arguments that you think are going to win, not the arguments that you politically would like to be the ones to win.
The lawyer's jobs are not to win the case by the most politically acceptable means possible, it's to win the case. If they don't win the case on states rights grounds, then they will move on to other defenses including the fact that the states argument doesn't match with the text of the law.
Let's say that you were charged with a crime, and you didn't do the crime and you know that. Great, if you can win on that then you should. But what about if you can't win on that? If you didn't do it, but you couldn't get doubt in the evidence to that finishing line to prove reasonable doubt, are you just going to accept going to jail? Or in the event that the jury finds you did do the thing, are you going to make all of the arguments other than you didn't do it, such as if it was a murder, that it was in self-defense, or that there was no mens rea or any one of a bunch of different things that could win you the case, even though the truth is you didn't do the thing?
For people who aren't used to reading legal documents, it's pretty jarring, but again -- your side's lawyers want you to win, and you by definition cannot win unless you make the argument. If you have an incompetent counsel, and they don't make arguments that would let you win the case, even if the judge believes it you should get off, the judges job is to be an impartial arbiter and so they can't help you -- you just lose the case even though you shouldn't have. Also, if you make those different arguments they leave you open for the ability to appeal later because maybe you can ask for a second crack at the bat when it comes to the stuff I constitutional issues. If you don't raise the constitutional issues during the case, by definition you cannot appeal.
Antidepressants are like emotional morphine. They kill the pain, but they don't solve the problem. If you broke your leg in six places, it hurts. It's supposed to hurt. If you try to walk on that broken leg, it's really going to hurt. That's your body telling you not to walk on that leg. Typically, the way that morphine is used is immediately before treatment to reduce the suffering of the patient, or after treatment to help manage the pain while the body is healing.
In the same way, antidepressants turn off the pain receptors, but it doesn't mean you're ok. It just means the injury doesn't hurt at the moment. Therefore, in the same way it should be used immediately before treatment to reduce the suffering of the patient, and during treatment to help manage the pain while the mind is healing.
Both opiates and antidepressants have negative side effects. Opiates are addictive narcotics, and antidepressants turn down many emotions not just pain. A heavily medicated individual will have an increasingly monotone voice because everything's getting that volume turned down. Many become increasingly unambitious, since the drivers have ambition also get the volume turned it down.
Now there's definitely people who make an argument that all drugs should be legal, but I think that if we go down that path it needs to be something that changes on a societal basis not on a piece by piece basis. If individuals are fully aware that just because something's on the shelf doesn't make it safe then there's a good chance there'll be a lot more careful than if there's one or two things the government says are okay but an entire universe of things that they regulate.
So having said that, it only makes sense under the current regime to keep antidepressants regulated because they need to be used carefully and wisely and usually as part of other treatment that should be aiming and getting you to the point that you don't need to take them anymore.
In the same way, antidepressants turn off the pain receptors, but it doesn't mean you're ok. It just means the injury doesn't hurt at the moment. Therefore, in the same way it should be used immediately before treatment to reduce the suffering of the patient, and during treatment to help manage the pain while the mind is healing.
Both opiates and antidepressants have negative side effects. Opiates are addictive narcotics, and antidepressants turn down many emotions not just pain. A heavily medicated individual will have an increasingly monotone voice because everything's getting that volume turned down. Many become increasingly unambitious, since the drivers have ambition also get the volume turned it down.
Now there's definitely people who make an argument that all drugs should be legal, but I think that if we go down that path it needs to be something that changes on a societal basis not on a piece by piece basis. If individuals are fully aware that just because something's on the shelf doesn't make it safe then there's a good chance there'll be a lot more careful than if there's one or two things the government says are okay but an entire universe of things that they regulate.
So having said that, it only makes sense under the current regime to keep antidepressants regulated because they need to be used carefully and wisely and usually as part of other treatment that should be aiming and getting you to the point that you don't need to take them anymore.
[Admin Mode] Not sure anyone but me uses FBXL Satellite at https://satellite.fbxl.net but it's updated to the latest repository now.
(and if I'm being totally honest, I just use mostr for contacting people on nostr)
(and if I'm being totally honest, I just use mostr for contacting people on nostr)
It can be done, but they're going to have to rethink what life looks like. It won't be nice, lots of people lose their gibs.
I saw someone post this with respect to Milei early on, and it continues to be true.
Maybe he turns out to be a charlatan in the end, but balancing a budget is by itself a huge step in the right direction.
Maybe he turns out to be a charlatan in the end, but balancing a budget is by itself a huge step in the right direction.
I would support a single law abridging freedom of speech: anyone who advocates for abridging freedom of speech immediately gets executed.
They get what they want! Problem solved!
They get what they want! Problem solved!