busdriver

Not trying to dogpile you. This point keeps coming up, not just by you. This seems to be following along with Mearsheimer's analysis of how "we" got to this point. What this line of thinking omits is a strong defense of the counter factual. Said another way, I think the idea that if NATO had not continued to grow post cold war, that Russa would not have done any of the stuff they've done in past 20 years is silly. Putin considers the collapse of the Soviet Union the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century. Fundamentally, this line of thought is a serious case of main character syndrome. All of that analysis contains the implicit assumption that all foreign affairs are essentially reactions to western (USA) action. No one else has agency. Which is completely at odds with one of his own key realism points; namely that all states will seek regional hegemony in order to secure their survival. Russia has always been an expansionist empire. They don't have defensible borders.

The headline of that article is dumb, and not what was ruled. What the 9th circuit is actually saying is a blanket approval of all vaccine mandates is a misapplication of the Jacobson ruling. Jacobson is predicated on a legitimate government interest in preventing the spread of a disease. If a vaccine does not do that, then Jacobson doesn't apply. So the biochemical method has nothing to do with it, nor does the "newness" of mRNA vaccines.

Presumption of innocence does not mean anyone is brain washed into thinking the dirt bag Crip is actually a saint. It means the burden of proof is on the state. The standard in court (beyond reasonable doubt) is high because the risk to liberty is high. Police officers act on a much lower standard (probable cause), because the presumption is a much lower risk to liberty. When making arrests the police are not acting on a presumption of guilt, they are acting on probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. If a crime occurred, then there is another party whose rights/liberty were violated, whether that party is an actual accuser or the public at large. Yes, the actual cops think the dude they're grabbing is a complete shit-head. But that is completely different than their authority/place within the common law tradition. It may seem like semantics, but this is very important within the context of how the law is supposed to work.

You're mixing legal concepts with moral ones, and your logic is backwards. You're using a presumption of guilt in your moral balancing act. Then claiming otherwise. Of your examples, the second is a prime example. You are assuming the criminality of a suspect prior to due process. That example is clearly immoral as written. The state has an obligation to choose the least risky option apprehend suspects. (Yes, a balancing act between risk to the larger public, the actual officer and the suspect.) Aside: No-knock warrants are predicated on the concept of being the safest option for all involved, based on a reasonable assumption that the suspect will fight. If done correctly it's over before anyone has any idea that something is happening. In other words, the state is actually balancing risk and finding the best solution for everyone, including the suspect. This is important since the "criminal" isn't one until due process is complete. Anecdotally, it seems that there is a problem with the way SWAT teams are used in the current "policing culture" (not sure how to word that). Libertarians like to yell about "militarization of police" and point to DRMO of equipment to cops. Which I think misses the mark. I suspect it's actually rooted in balance of risk, and over focus on "officer safety." The latter was an important change from the 1970s, but I suspect like all advocacy and activist cultures, it became self serving.

Lighten up Francis. You entirely missed uhhello's point.

Him Him.

Crisis wasn't a kosher name? Or PA just wanted to church it up?

Him Him

-Not talking estate tax. Just the mechanics of technique. The heir pays the debt rather than allowing the estate to cover it, which makes it gone and frees the burden from the estate and allows the step-up trick to work. Got it. I don't care at all about your last point.

I do. My point is that the executor of the will must pay off legitimate debts before distributing inheritance. Those debts are paid from the assets of the estate. The kiddos don't get anything until the debts are paid.

The executer to the will still has to pay debts from estate assets prior to dishing out inheritance (which is where all the tax bennies are). So capital gains are gonna get paid eventually. Yes? There have been a bunch of proposals to go after this in the past. Taxing gains at death before transfer, and dropping the carryover basis in favor of rollover basis being the two easy ones to remember. Either of these is better than taxing money that doesn't exist. Taxing unrealized gains is taxing money that doesn't exist. This is emotionally driven nonsense.

And how are these loans paid off?

Lighten up Francis. People who ascribe to your line of thinking.

Just so we're clear, under US law treaties are legally binding. We'd have to withdraw from NATO, otherwise we are in fact obligated. So if this shit roles into a NATO country, that's a problem. If your point is that we should actually withdraw from NATO or simply say fuck that treaty....like I said, intellectual masturbation. If folks like you win out, I truly hope I'm wrong.

If the choice is that or nuclear war, then yes. It would hurt, but hurt them more than us. Based on your previous comments, I'd guess you think along the lines of: "we have a shit track record of not foreseeing blowback and we'd be better off just staying at home and leaving the world to it's own business." France seems eager beaver to do something, which would no doubt drag us back into things. So I assume you also want to withdraw from all treaties and alliances, which is a pre-requisite to staying at home. It's also a pipe-dream, and will never happen. Nothing more than intellectual masturbation. There are no answers, only trade offs.

I just saw this thread, and I'll share this for anyone else that bumbles across this. I have what Ratner is suggesting, running True NAS Scale for the OS and then a tailscale application to allow a very simple VPN access from on the road. At the end of the day, I can access the shared drive on my home server from anywhere. I can also route my internet traffic back to the house if I want to avoid sending things over the hotel wifi. It is not terrible to setup, but it's not nearly as turn key as a Synology box as an example. TrueNAS is really a basic server OS rather than just a NAS OS. It has virtualization options and the afore mentioned apps (containers) and a bunch of other stuff. That said, if all you're doing is NAS stuff, you can put together a computer to run it for pretty cheap since it'll run on pretty crappy hardware. All the server stuff will require more horsepower if that's what you're looking for though.

If I'm missing any of your point above, apologies. Nothing is 100%, granted. But an actual war with Russia would be clubbing baby seals level, and an actual existential threat to "the Russian empire". I think the chance Russia tosses nukes is extremely high. Whether we throw them back is another question, but quite frankly irrelevant since Russian nukes are what will kill Americans. You seem convinced of the fourth turning. I am not. Without going into that, I don't think America is in decline let alone circling the drain. The next 10-20 years will see massive growth. But I suspect there is zero chance we'll see eye to eye on this one at all. I am not talking about appeasement at all, sending money and equipment to keep Ukraine armed and killing Russians and breaking their shit is good. Complete economic isolation, not just sanctions. Anyone that trades with them, isolation. Etc. I am saying a military solution now is the jumping to the worst conclusion, one that we have historical precedent at avoiding. The entire cold war was fought via proxy and economics. It was not appeasement.

I think you may be correct here, eventually. But starting the war that will result in a nuclear exchange just to get it over with is dumb. Next after Ukraine is Moldova, also a non NATO country. Which means the rest of us have two countries to figure out what is actually required. Which means we have a chance to avoid a nuclear war. All of this is how the cold war was fought. The various proxy wars, two segregated economic spheres, etc. The cold war won't look the same the second time around (Putin also learned from glasnost and perestroika) but first step is understanding what is actually happening. Most American pundits are still stuck in main character syndrome, they only disagree on whether it's a hero or anti-hero story. I don't disagree with your primary thought, just the best way to fight this.

At the end of the day, yes. They aren't NATO. This was always about making Russia bleed to take Ukraine, and destroy as much of their shit as possible in the process. This is the spark that will re-arm Europe, and the wall will go back up. This war will be fought economically. Hopefully. I really really hope. Because all the politicians are in fact stupid children. EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying sending western troops to fight for Ukraine is dumb. Sending more money/equipment is par for the course. Also Moldovia is fucked too.

Well color me the asshole. I didn't put that together. Sheesh..... I'm blaming a lack of sleep and flying across the country very early in the morning. In any event, very much in agreement then. They may have bit off a bit too much, we'll see.

I suspect this is mainly a message to their own population. Secondarily could be about putting the rest of region between a rock and hard place when Israel goes asking for overflight.

The dumber point of this is that higher costs to oil and natural gas on federal land will predominantly affect offshore production. And the rapid expansion capability within the US system is private land fracking. So this move is really just incentivizing increased investment into/growth of fracking.

Your retards are more retarded than my retards!

State is completely incapable of competent operational planning.

Or it was just jihadis doing what they do. Good grief.