slamdance

if your mother has a PhD and only makes $17k/year, Its because she WANTS to in that She would rather do her job where she is at than move (geographically or career orientation-ally). People working fast food can make more than that.

no - war and politics are always going to be intermingled. The issue is that people (especially in today's climate) are polarized, emotionally blaming one 'side' or 'the other' when both are equally culpable.

My point is that this could have been a great article. The 'morality of war' is always something that should be talked about and debated, etc... but when one 'side' brings up 'such-and-such-party', that party's 'true followers' feel the need to defend them, and reply in kind and nothing is resolved, everyone else (who wanted an actual discussion) rolls their eyes and leaves with their shoulders slouched in defeat/despair/apathy.

a decent article until it went political at the end - almost as a "BTW..."

It failed to bring most of the wars (or "police actions") into the picture. Maybe because all of the 'major' conflicts prior to desert storm (C/WW1/2/K/V) were headed by the opposite political party than that mentioned. This is not to say other conflicts didn't happen under other parties as they obviously have.

While the reasoning is sound insofar as the 'unmentioned' conflicts were fought primarily by draftees (again - politics?), it really gives no satisfactory reason, only conjecture and opinion (politics) on the current military actions - which SPANS political parties.

Sadly, the introduction of politics into an article initially put forth as something about the "morality or war" says more about the intent of the author than the question the article brings up.

yes. But they also have credit card accounts, hardware wallets as well as paper wallets. If you keep your coins offline (if you're holding), they won't get hacked.

The best way (IMO) to counteract the WoD propaganda is through facts, education, medical studies, etc... and through these issues, the people that pushed the illogical conclusions will be exposed, embarrassed and hopefully come away more enlightened.

the vast majority of the politicians responsible for the 'war of drugs' are dead. The ones that continue to perpetuate it are not being held accountable for anything, let alone the WoD. So by continuing to point fingers (at politicians), what is being accomplished?

The only movement that I have seen is at the State level, where the people are literally telling the "authorities" to GTFO and legalizing (or decriminalizing) at the state level. If anything the politicians are reaping the rewards by playing both sides of the issue. Blaming them doesn't work.

'lifetime use' could have also increased due to people not being afraid to admit past use after decriminalization. Was there a control for that?

why does it have to about who we 'blame'? Why not go back to the CIA and how they wanted to undermine the social & political revolutions of the 60s & 70s? why not go back to 'reefer madness' and the how it was based almost solely in fear and racism, or how William Randolph Hearst's paper & publishing 'empire' was threatened by hemp? does any of that matter? Not really.

We have a problem now that we need to fix. We don't need to dwell in the past or blame people. We're more knowledgeable now - so we need to use that knowledge to fix the problems - or at least work with / around them to the betterment of people.

Yeah, it will take a lawsuit, and that, I am told will take ~18 months +/-. I'm on the hook until then. So far, with lost work, PT and imaging, I'm already out almost $20k

I apologize for the rabbit hole. But I must ask: the "democratic public" of North Korea? or just "mob rule" in general? the "authoritarian power brokers" of the US? or Russia (i.e. Ukraine, Odessa, etc...)?, China (i.e. India, Tibet, Myanmar vs. Rohingyas, etc...)?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. The UN has proven to be quite useless.

Edit - Link Added: http://www.independent.ie/world-news/china-endorses-myanmars...

the word "deserve" is very subjective... who gets to decide who is "deserving"?

It started under Obama, but keep up the Left-Right narrative. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150418/11370530715/motel...

I am neither, but I have family who is a JW. Their viewpoint on anything remotely close to 'prepping' is that it shows a complete 'lack of faith' in the assumption that god will provide & protect. Now, this person doesn't live in earthquake/tornado/disaster prone area, so I'm not sure if this is a universal belief for all JWs. I can't imagine they would reject the most basic safety precautions such as 3-day kits or something of that nature...

Medicare & Medicaid has always been an option for everyone - its just that if you made too much money, then you didn't qualify. It was a safety net for the poorest people. It was not meant for students just out of school (who presumably had skills to get a job with benefits) or people who are perfectly happy not progressing or producing in their lives (which is fine, just don't demand that "society" pays for everything).

That is the underlying problem though. There is no "shopping around". Either your plan allows it, or does not. If you need a procedure, your choices are effectively limited to who is on your coverage list.

FWIW, I live in an area where there is ONE healthcare option (Racketeering/monopoly). I (as an independent consultant) pay $1640/mo for a $5,000 family deductible. So basically, I pay over $19,000/year for the PRIVILEGE of paying another $5,000 and that's assuming I only go to the doctors "they allow" me to go to. (it was $800/mo for a $1500 family deductible prior to ACA). Obama can EABOD.

The only people who like the ACA are the people who don't have to pay for it.

Edit: Also I was in an MVA in July, the Emergency Dept. didn't accept my insurance at all - so who gets the bill? I do. The MVA wasn't my fault, but that bill is still my responsibility.

so are you talking about the Mormons (LDS) or Jehovah's Witnesses? they have two very different views on how the 'world ends' and what to do about it.

Also - the book One Second After is based on the premise of an EMP attack. https://www.amazon.com/Second-After-John-Matherson-Novel/dp/...

1. "any" disaster is "plausible", some just more probable than not. 2. Looking forward to a disaster? Do you mean like a firefighter "looks forward to" fires or EMS "looks forward to" MVAs? While I can't speak for the 'preppers' you generalize, I can speak for fire fighters and EMS in that they feel that when TSHTF, they want to be there.... unless the 'preppers' you know are straight up lunatics. 3. "Jehoavh's witnesses 'mentality' has nothing to do with 'prepping'. They think (IIRC) that only a certain number of people will be 'saved', preparations be damned. So... what does that have to do with 'prepping'?

Also, why do you inject 'no talk of violence'? as if all the survivors of a catastrophe will be peace-nicks? have you not read any of the studies put out by think tanks or books on previous governmental/environmental collapses? Violence is almost a certainty (in long-term, wide spread catastrophic anomalies). Why do you feel it isn't in your best interest to also prepare for that as you would food, water, etc... ?