Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

ChocolateReignRemix

Members
  • Content Count

    403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChocolateReignRemix

  1. They were promoting allowing adults to legally have sex with children. Two different times you claimed they were advocating " decriminalising sex for children" which is outright falsehood. It's hard to claim that these groups were actually part of the sexual revolution when society actually moved in the other direction of criminalizing sexual activity between adults and children during the same time (AOC laws increased in many places, the nearly universal ban against child p*rn, and increased enforcement of laws regarding the sexual abuse of children and the dissemination of child p*orn). Arguing these groups were part of the "real conversation" when they were booted from the conversation via criminal prosecution and other groups refusing to be associated with them is nonsensical. Regarding the bolded, how else would the limits be made? If you try to argue religion, good luck picking which one!
  2. 1.) If you refuse to let CPS/the police in without a warrant (within your rights), you are a moron when you refuse to let them in when they come back with a warrant. There is no scenario where that will ever end well for you. 2.) Having been in an apartment that was on the receiving end of a knock from police officers serving a warrant (they wanted the unit across the hall - college town apartments and the neighbors were apparently supplementing their financial aid with a home-based pharmaceutical business), if the police are knocking on your door with the intent of serving a warrant you will know.
  3. I am calling this out yet again. There was no movement decriminalizing sex *for* children. There were very, very small groups (NAMBLA, PIE and the possibly fictitious Rene Guyon Society) that failed miserably in efforts to decriminalize sex *with* children by lowering the age of consent. Those are not the same things. Based on my limited knowledge of these groups they focused their arguments on children's rights more so than anything to do with forced celibacy. The groups in question were as a rule not given much credibility, and based on a quick search most of those involved were in prison by the 80s. Police investigations moved rather quickly thanks to public pressure, so I think your insinuations that these groups had any sort of acceptability is a serious reach. FWIW during the same time frame you referenced child p*rn was legally available in many places and was sold alongside adult p*rn. By the end of the attempts of these groups to lower the AOC most nations had changed their laws to outlaw it.
  4. +1 I would also like to add even though Bluegoat's point about slavery "declining" for a time is technically correct, during that same time period the Church also routinely participated and condoned the subjugation of the peasant/serf classes throughout Europe and elsewhere.
  5. Incorrect. In time of a heath emergency public health officials can restrict to public places. If they were only restricting access to places of worship or singling out specific groups then there would be a violation. In the manner you are describing they would be acting within the law.
  6. They would still be incorrect as the statistic for medical mistakes /= "doctors cause more deaths". Medical mistakes is a broad category that includes a lot more than malpractice/mistakes by caregivers. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us
  7. Wait...what are you saying happened exactly? Both then and now the laws were not structured in a way to criminalize a child having sex, but rather it was (and still is) a criminal act to have sex with a child. Those are two very, very different concepts under the law. If you are hinting that progressive were somehow accepting of no AOC laws at all, then I will need to see some receipts showing that was a broadly accepted view. Hint: it wasn't.
  8. Reasonable quarantines and other measures to protect the public health do not violate the Constitution. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html
  9. You know, when someone comes out with a comment like this I really do have to wonder if they even take a moment to just think it through a little. Have you never heard of people with limited resources using library computers for job searches, job applications and the like? And you really think one of society's major issues is "pervs" getting access to library computers? Really? I won't get started with you regarding the legalization of pot because I don't have time for a remake of "Reefer Madness" right now.
  10. Interesting but not particularly useful when discussing a potential recession, particularly as it was written before the yield curve inversion on Friday and the latest manufacturing numbers. It also focuses on stock market returns, which are nice so far in 2019 but still has down around 5% from October. Monday is going to be a shaky day for the markets based on current futures action and the performance of Asian markets today. Another correction in the next few months is not out of the question. A lot will depend on trade deals and the next round of economic reports.
  11. I have a few Aussie friends scattered about and they have told me something similar about real estate prices. Construction is particularly recession sensitive so I would certainly be cautious. There isn't an impending international economic Armageddon but on a personal level there doesn't need to be. As the old economic saying goes, if your neighbor loses his/her job there is a recession. If you lose your job then there is a depression. The other one I like is: --A recession means you need to tighten your belt. --A depression means you have no belt to tighten. --And in a panic you don't need a belt because you no longer have pants.
  12. 1.) Ask yourself if these are long term or short term decisions. The shorter the term the more recession risk I would assign to the decision. 2.) Evaluate your personal risk in a recession. How secure are your primary sources of income? How leveraged are you? Not all recession risk is equal. 3.) I am old school here, but never borrow to invest. And even though the numbers don't totally support this, eliminating debt has life equity value that doesn't show up in a balance sheet. The best of both worlds is investing for the future while also working a debt elimination plan but sometimes life says "hahahaha no!" to that plan. 4.) If it is an investment decision (and this is not professional investment advice), equities have limited upside in the near term. I wouldn't let FOMO (fear of missing out) play a role at this time. If it is more of a real estate decision it is more of a grey area.
  13. The article has some accurate information but trends towards the hysterical a bit. Every day you don't have a recession you are a day closer to your next. The 3 mo/10 year yield curve did invert, and this is often an indicator that a recession is looming. Some of the impact of the indicator is lessened as that time horizon for the predicted recession is fairly wide, with the average time lag being somewhere around a year (give or take). There is a question as to whether the amount of debt held by central banks is lessening the reliability of the inversion as a predictor this time around. I am still catching up on the financial news today, but I don't think the inversion lasted through the trading day. If not I would be looking more closely at the average yield between the 3 mo and 10 yr over a 30 day average. Institutional demand can play a role in a brief inversion. We definitely are seeing slowing economic growth due to variety of headwinds. The past year of the trade war has caused a many companies to hold off on making investments as they are not sure about future pricing/demand. China has showed weakening growth (more alarming due to China usually overstating growth so admitted declines causes a concern that things are even worse), we have slower growth in the EU, and Brexit is looking more like a shit show ever day. On the plus side, there are signs the US and China could reach something that looks like a deal, China started a stimulus effort in late 2018 which should yield fruit soon, and the job market and consumer spending in the US remains strong. The US housing market has taken a hit but most of that impact has already appeared in the data and shouldn't get much worse in the near term. Summary: I have expected a recession or enough of a slowdown to feel like one by 2020. I don't see anything that really changes my mind, other than a small chance that the China deal causes some exuberance and sparks business investment again. The Fed has also backed off of rate increases in the near term which takes that fear off the table, and helps alleviate some of the debt concern expressed in the article. We also do not have any indications yet that credit markets have gotten overly risk averse (helped a bit by future business investment running low at the moment), In the end I think all the headwinds together gives us a short recession and without additional negative stimuli I don't expect anything more than something along the lines of what we felt around 2000. What I do not see is a massive global meltdown akin to 2008. And yes, every analyst wants to be the one who can say they called "The Big One", which means some will call everything that next Big One until they get one right. Keep in mind that consensus of economists have successfully predicted 12 of the past 3 recessions. 🙂 If you want to play economist with the pros, watch the labor markets, energy markets (especially a collapse in demand) and the manufacturing reports. If you see unemployment increasing while the manufacturing reports decline and energy demand drops, you will know the recession is on the horizon. ETA: the inversion did hold through the day. I would still wait and see what the movement is over the next month.
  14. The acceptance rate is around 35%. A lot of the top state schools can be highly selective, especially in states with large populations.
  15. Mail fraud has some fairly stiff sentences at the federal level. Sentencing guidelines will come into play. I doubt anyone involved has past convictions which would increase the sentencing level, but the chance of some time in a federal prison is high.
  16. FWIW the claims in that link are greatly disputed, and while indentured servitude was awful, it legally was a very different status in the colonies than that of a slave. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us/irish-slaves-myth.html https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Runaway_Slaves_and_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia#start_entry
  17. Oh hell naw! Did you rattle a cage at corporate? Marriott is usually much better at customer service and they should be comping you some Rewards points which would cover part of another stay.
  18. Just taking a flyer, I am going to say because others disagree and believe the evidence does support it? Just a guess as I don't follow the research closely.
  19. I can't say I have had my mind swayed but much on WTM, but over the years I have gotten a lot from discussions on other boards.
  20. Except according to the law in BC the child is legally old enough to give consent. In the end the final decision should go to the one with the most at stake if there is reasonable evidence to support that decision. In this case the child does have the support of one parent and health care professionals.
  21. States do not have to enforce federal law. The federal government declaring something illegal does not mean a state has to do so. The state cannot obstruct the enforcement of the federal law but they do not have to support it either.
  22. More than likely, yes. Bail conditions often restrict multiple legal activities.
×
×
  • Create New...