Verified Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About maxwere

  • Rank
    Rogue Booster
  • Birthday 10/29/1975

Profile Information

  • Location
    Houston, TX
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

460 profile views
  1. ...all rhetoric. He's cutting almost nothing near term which is what matters.
  2. This is all cover for other goings on in the world. Outside of rhetoric would the world be a .01% different place if HRC was president? The invisible powers of oligarchs foreign and domestic are far less concerned with who gets elected and far more concerned with how to coerce them once they get there. (They are especially unconcerned with social issues.) Where are the strings? 99% of world power is consolidated under the cartels of non-elected public office, central banks and corporatist mega giants anyway. On the whole, very little changes every 4 years. We, the people, insure that by constantly focusing on fear mongering and trivial matters.
  3. Guy's, when has it mattered who was president in this particular relationship? We fund both sides always have. Destabilization is the game plan.
  4. the country that openly sponsors terrorism, and seemingly all forms of militant Islam. Of course, we know this is Rex Tillerson's deal. Got to keep those Exxon-Aramco relations on solid ground.
  5. Wash, rinse, repeat. Makes perfect sense if you're a banker.
  6. Really good argument. Sounds libertarian (gasp). My ontological view of "life" takes me to a different conclusion. But, it not for that I'd agree with you. To be clear on my position, I believe a just magistrate protecting a just society puts rapists and murders to death. In particular, women who murder their kids. Lex talionis. That's the law I would prefer locally. It's not a crime against the feds or states, its a crime against a local victim. Retribution is taken to restore that victim, especially in case of unwanted pregnancy. However, like you, I don't want abortions or women's health to be legislated. I want murders & rapists to be tried and sentenced. A crime must be committed to involve action. (realizing of course, there are lesser crimes of the same sort, extenuating circumstances that absolve would be defendant etc)
  7. No. If they've stayed true to Ms Sanger, just blacks, Mexicans and poor whites.
  8. Though I disagree, I think both @Brad_ATX and @alexava have very well reasoned arguments. Kudos. I would challenge you guys to defend your premise that rape is evil (immoral) and the method you determine this. (There are currently cultures that don't see certain forms of rape this way. How can you objectively criticize those cultural practices?) I'm particularly interested to see if you can do it without appeal to consensus, natural rights or some other kind of subjective social decency.
  9. I wasn't going to link this, but since @homersapien made a good geopolitics comment & since the vid mocks the gross internal inconsistency of the alt-right. Enjoy: Science, logic, reason has no ground to form morality on its own. It has to borrow moral suppositions from elsewhere. The universe is an evolved machine, a grandpa gets randomly knocked off on facebook... so what in the name of science? How does that transgress logic? It doesn't.
  10. Why are you speaking dead languages homer? (zygote: greek for yoke, fetus: latin for child/offspring)
  11. Evangelicals generally miss the framework of their argument. (For them) It's about feminism. Pregnancy is always a state of victimhood. Specifically, woman is in place to decide life ($.02 to @alexava). The woman is the autonomous god of her fetus. Whether or not science, the bible, canon law or any other authority says it a fetus is life, is irrelevant to that argument. Dismantle the framework first. If not, you are just one sad incest/rape case study away from losing, big time.
  12. Fix it by eliminating lower federal courts and encourage state & local courts to reclaim original jurisdiction. Any SCOTUS "opinion" outside of that jurisdiction might as well join the editorial section of VOX.
  13. Right. All travel services & telecommuting compete with all other travel services. My spidey senses tell me there is a very high barrier to entry. Also, Southwest regional hubs seem to be much better airports in general. Supply of gates is fairly fixed and publicly managed. SW got around this by getting into/remodeling other older airports.
  14. I gave up United 2 years ago, but the latest FUBAR has me wondering why a major service industry provider sucks so bad at service (and still has customers)? Thanks Ryan McMaken for answering some of my questions. The author of the above is wrong about at least one thing. The protectionist laws eliminating foreign competition are not "outdated." They were never a good idea to begin with. Protectionist laws such as the ban on foreign carriers have always favored the owners of domestic firms at the expense of their customers. United Airlines is more easily able to weather PR disasters because US law prohibits foreign carriers from coming in and offering services that don't involve being smacked around by police when the airline can't count how many seats it has on the plane. Were free trade allowed in the airline business, customers could potentially elect to fly the Irish carrier Aer Lingus — for example — between Boston and New York rather than United. This would, of course, drive down prices and give more choices to consumers.
  15. The visible Fed, the FOMC and associated technocrats, are academic intellectuals. Fully indoctrinated Keynesians, they are the cardinal papacy of financial technocracy. Rumpelstiltskins to be sure, they honestly believe in their cause and contribution. The official charter is the dual mandate of "control inflation" and "keep unemployment low". This under the auspice that they (non-democratically) serve the people. Their job is to maintain the front of legitimacy in monetary policy and the fraudulent fractional reserve system. (They also may offer you free college and some cheap beachfront property in Vietnam.) Any audit would be of these guys ^^^. The invisible Fed, the shareholders (the real Fed), are quite a different story. We don't actually "know" who they are. But statistically, there aren't many that they could be. Original shareholders (modern names) were JP Morgan (Chase), National City Bank of NY (Citi), Kuhn and Loeb (Am Ex, Morgan Stanley), Warburg (UBS... though Warburg supposedly gave up his share at the time of Nazis). In other words, Rockefeller, Morgan and Rothschild. That's all you really need to know. It should come as no surprise that these very same modern banks get bailouts, have special lending privileges with Fed interest rates and a constant flow of money and lobby (in the form of cabinet members) into DC and institutions of higher learning. Oh yeah, and with the only exception of Lehman Bros, never go bankrupt.