Complicating
I'm frequently told by conservatives, “I used to be libertarian but I grew out of it.”
Let's not forget “The world doesn't work like that. We have to live in the real world.”
Is this really how the World works? Or is this how the self-appointed “experts” want you to think how the World works?
Let's take the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Remember that the Constitution limits government, not people.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
So is there anything there about barrel length, how big the magazine is, or if it's a scary black color or not?
It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that every Federal gun law violates the Second Amendment.
Yes, that reading is subject to interpretation. By experts determined to prove that their expertise should trump your common sense.
Don't you believe me? Toss in the Tenth.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Taken together, it's hard to dispute that every Federal gun law is invalid. Nothing about using guns only for hunting. Nothing about gun registries or background checks. Nothing about which guns can be sold to what people.
And that raises some interesting questions. Because if the experts are overcomplicating gun laws and regulations to get around the Constitution, what else might they be doing?
Except for the much abused interstate commerce clause, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power and authority over medications or intoxicants.
There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over education.
There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over banking, stock markets, and commodity markets.
Chances are if the Federal government claims authority over speech, elections, commerce, it doesn't have it.
So why do we think it does?
Because that's what the politicos, the technocrats, and the experts have told us.
The people don't benefit from complications. The experts do.
Let's make this basic. You know what a car should do. You know that the more extras you throw in, the more expensive the car is to own and operate. You know that a more expensive car is harder to design and is full of trade-offs. That last boost in performance is the most expensive. So you have to make a choice. Do you want something reliable that you can afford, or do you want to impress people?
Make it legislation instead of a car and that is the choice of the average Congress critter.
Do you want something that can do the job, or do you want to make yourself look important?
Experts complicate things that should be simple.
You see, I've done this before.
❝❝You see, I've done this before. When True Believer Christians told me I was damned and a mortal threat to their children. When conservatives told me that only one way could save the country and anything else threatened their children. When progressives told me that capitalism and individualism were dead and should stay that way for the sake of the children. When well-fed third wave feminists in designer clothes told me about how they were oppressed by the patriarchy and wouldn't have children. When pagans lectured me on the evils of monotheism and how love would save the world. Always, always, ALWAYS the pattern is exactly the same. In the absence of understanding, triviality dominates. The enlightened demand sacrifice from everyone else. "For the children" is for those living and in charge. Anyone who offers an absolute won't brook dissent. Experts are uniquely qualified to fuck the situation up beyond any hope of repair. Government is not your friend.
So you have a chance here to change your behavior, change your pattern and accept responsibility. Your choice.❞❞— NeoWayland, from the comments of The Climate Change Watermelon Juggernaut & The Prescience Of Michael Crichton
NeoNote — Trump & North Korea
❝❝I'm not totally convinced that North Korea has anything left to work with. Something happened to that mountain. Most likely it's because of NK's own testing. Now they have the Chinese looking over their shoulder saying "Don't put radioactive stuff over our country!" Meanwhile, the NK leadership doesn't know how to deal with Trump and is looking for help where ever it can find it.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
This isn't business as usual. It never is with Trump. The old diplomatic games won't work. He doesn't care about the shape of the table. Trump cares about getting things done.
ETA: Pardon, that was the wrong China article link. Here's the correct one.
Obviously I disagree.
I will say two more things. The people saying that Trump is going to bungle this are many of the same people who said the conference would never happen, that Trump couldn't bring the North Koreans to the table, that answering threats with threats couldn't possibly work, and most importantly, that Trump would never win the Presidency.
And I think it's too early to say how the table is set.
I think you are seriously underestimating Trump.
But more importantly, you are expecting Trump to act like a politician.
North Korea is treading new ground dealing with Trump.
I remind you how many times you have been wrong about Trump on this thread alone. You really should brush up on negotiating, not the diplomatic version but the commercial version.
I'm also amazed by how many are writing off this meeting before it happens. Many of them said there would never be a meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea, and that happened.
Kim Jong Un can't feed his people. After that happens for a while, even tyrants have to shift course.
I didn't say it would go well. I said you have been wrong about Trump. And so have a lot of "experts." Trump does things in his own way and he has accomplished quite a bit.
Quite frankly, the President (ANY President) should make his own decisions and not be bound by what the staff thinks is important. That's part of the institutional climate that needs to change. The staff serves at the pleasure of the President.
And if this were a Democrat President, you would be cheering his courage and independence.
Given that most of the news stories about Trump have been extremely negative, I think it's safe to assume there is a bias there. It's not that the news has been negative, it's been that is how it is written. Many of the "open sources" have long considered it their Duty to deliver the narrative, not the news. Stormy Daniels is a non-story, or rather it's a story in a way that no one wants to report. If she took money at the time to stay quiet (a voluntary act), then what kind of person is she to break her word and contract? And if she is that kind of person, how can she be trusted to tell the truth now?
The point is, the information that is being published about Trump isn't necessarily accurate. Career Washington politicos and lobbyists don't know what he is going to say from day to day, much less what he is going to do. And if they don't know and if the media regularly alters the news to fit the narrative, just how much good do those sources do for the North Koreans?❞❞