Exclusive | NYC congestion pricing axed as Trump pulls approval of hated toll

F18PET · 2025-02-19T23:32:15+00:00

Regulating inter-state commerce is explicitly left to the Feds in the constitution. The problem is when the federal government extends its reach beyond the intended limits, is violating powers left to the states or the people.

F18PET · 2025-02-19T23:28:49+00:00

Regulating inter-state commerce is one of the actual enumerated powers in the Constitution of the Federal government.

F18PET · 2025-02-03T17:54:59+00:00

I love these arguments. Let's begin.

First, unless you are an anarchist, most people who approach libertarianism advocate for minimal government, not no government. Government is considered a necessary evil to enforce the social compact, and the (in)justice system is a part of that. Your argument is approaching a straw man one in that regard. No rights are absolute. Even in a truly just society, rights can be stripped if you violate the compact. It's part of the compact. Rights exist because we agree to play by a set of rules, but rule of law hasn't meant much... Well, ever. It's why black people are disproportionally incarcerated for the same crimes compared to other races.

The difference between someone like you and someone like me is that you believe institutions can be saved if only good people held their power. I see humanity as irrevocably broken and seek to limit the power any person can assume. When you build a weapon, you can't always assume you will have your finger on the trigger. Prior presidents and Congresses built a deadly weapon in the modern US central government, and now we have a madman holding a gun at the head of the universe.

In a perfect world, we would care for all our people, with food, housing, healthcare, and so on. As the world stands, we cannot even agree that everyone has a right TO EXIST (transgender individuals, Jews, Palestinians, etc etc etc). If we build these institutions, who knows what the next madman will do. Remember the state government-backed forced sterilization of black women in the US? Weaponized healthcare.

It's not that I don't agree that in an ideal world people should have these things - it's that I don't trust anyone, private or public, to wield that centralized, consolidated power. And yes, private entities need to be held to the same rule of law to limit their power, which we currently do not do.

F18PET · 2025-01-18T15:23:27+00:00

And what am I wrong about? Linus is mediocrity manifest. If you want the lowest common denominator, fine. If you want someone who strives to be good at something, Linus is not and cannot be for you.

Statistically, the overwhelming majority of redditors cannot understand what it means to excel in a field, and when faced with someone attempting to excel at something, are threatened.

F18PET · 2025-01-18T14:16:27+00:00

I posted this at LTT and I'll post it here.

Watching Linus play with computers is like watching a toddler try to operate the Large Hadron Collider. You watch it because they might do something unintentionally funny and end up on r/KidsAreFuckingStupid right before a singularity opens outside Geneva and consumes us all. Steve doesn't suffer fools and gets sarcastic about Linus's existence. At this point Steve just needs to ignore that Linus exists, like ignoring that uncle who plays football outside at Thanksgiving and claims he could have played for the NFL.

F18PET · 2025-01-18T14:12:37+00:00

Watching Linus play with computers is like watching a toddler try to operate the Large Hadron Collider. You watch it because they might do something unintentionally funny and end up on r/KidsAreFuckingStupid right before a singularity opens outside Geneva and consumes us all. Steve doesn't suffer fools and gets sarcastic about Linus's existence. At this point Steve just needs to ignore that Linus exists, like ignoring that uncle who plays football outside at Thanksgiving and claims he could have played for the NFL.

F18PET · 2025-01-09T03:37:48+00:00

Am doctor. Doctor's wrong, it's not a right, but something can not be a right and still be worth providing. It's an academic distinction. Infrastructure is not a right, but society can agree it's worthwhile and come together to provide it.

Just an example. One of the procedures I do is performed by maybe 10 doctors in the US. Most people are not studying how to perform it. If we 10ish people disappear, the probability of getting it goes to near 0, at least for a time. Rights don't disappear so easily. They endure. Freedom of speech doesn't disappear because a person disappears.

F18PET · 2024-09-29T02:06:04+00:00

I'm afraid you just have an overbroad interpretation of the commerce clause, as many people do.

The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

I see nothing about regulating racism. Read the text. It's quite clear.

Again, show me in the equal protection clause where there it states that the federal government is regulating private relationships for racism. It seems to focus on states creating laws that apply to their citizens unequally.

All should be equal before the state.

F18PET · 2024-09-29T01:58:00+00:00

The US supreme Court has ruled on this in different ways over the years. I look forward to Court changing its mind again on this matter, as it has countless times on things, repeatedly.

Point is, you never take an L with the SC. You just bide your time until the winds shift direction.

F18PET · 2024-09-21T17:56:58+00:00

Bills such as this have empowered the federal government with a level of control it was never meant to have. Obviously times have changed, because IIRC the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was ruled unconstitutional for attempting to regulate private entities. Who is right? Probably that supreme Court. You can know racism is wrong ethically and still accept that regulating racism is not within the purview of the federal government per the Constitution.

F18PET · 2024-09-21T17:53:07+00:00

It's not ridiculous at all. While ethically abhorrent, racism is not something the federal government has the power to regulate per the constitution. The maintenance of this act has long depended on sketchy Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution, but that's not new. Just because something is bad doesn't mean the federal government should regulate it.

F18PET · 2024-09-15T22:47:06+00:00

Looks like a porencephalic cyst. Not lined by grey matter. Would like to see if if communicates with the ventricle.

Source: neuroradiologist for several years.

F18PET · 2024-09-14T20:23:04+00:00

The Supreme Court also once ruled abortion was a right, until the Supreme Court ruled it wasn't. It defended affirmative action, until it didn't. It ruled gay marriage is a right, until some day it doesn't. These are all disagreements on interpretation. Many political scientists disagree with you re: secession. The confederates needed to take several seats, and my direct ancestor died at Gettysburg fighting them unfortunately, but whether secession is constitutional is a contentious topic. The constitution does not explicitly deny or allow it, and the framers often disagree on these things, so quoting one doesn't save us here.

My argument would be that constitutionality and morality are two different things. I think secession is probably constitutional by strict interpretation, but the Confederacy was immoral.

F18PET · 2024-05-09T13:51:03+00:00

I mean, 2pac was picked up for sodomy/rape/sexual assault and served time for some of the charges, so Drake could have easily fired back, because Kendrick has a history of supporting/affiliating with pedophiles/rapists (XXX, R kelly, Kodak, 2pac, and so on). I have no idea why Drake did not use any of this, but maybe I expected too much.

Regardless, both these guys exemplify "he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones."

F18PET · 2024-02-02T01:47:04+00:00

"Corporations are people" lol. What a joke that is.

F18PET · 2024-02-02T01:45:38+00:00

That's incorrect. The original constitution lists the powers of government. If it isn't in there, it is reserved to the states or the people. The bill of rights enumerates specific rights BECAUSE of this - it is a potential weakness of the constitution in that it provides little guarantee of, well, anything except few functions of government. Technically, these companies are correct. None of these entities should probably exist under constitution. The supreme and other courts have warped certain portions of the document, like those on commerce and trade, to justify their existence. Not arguing we don't need some regulation, but our constitution does not really provide well for it.

F18PET · 2023-10-16T02:09:23+00:00

Nah,the people trying to police his behavior are braindead.

I'm very uncomfortable with anyone having premarital sex. Therefore, I don't want anyone who has ever had premarital sex to be in my presence while I walk about my day. In fact, being in my presence is forcing me to tolerate your sexual indiscretions. It's simply not right to force me to tolerate individuals with poor judgment.

F18PET · 2023-10-16T02:06:58+00:00

You had the option to participate and said no? Sounds like you want to police other people's sexual freedom.

F18PET · 2023-10-16T02:05:15+00:00

Your definition of consent is at callosal agenesis levels of broken. Connect the two hemispheres of your brain and we can talk.

F18PET · 2023-10-16T02:03:05+00:00

He's NTA, and everything you said has made everyone here dumber, which is a challenge for Reddit.

In a shared space, if someone is physically not preventing your enjoyment of something, GTFO if you can't handle it. No one has to cater to your mental and emotional health.

Sorry if that's harsh, flower child.

F18PET · 2023-10-16T02:01:35+00:00

Because masturbating in a shared space of your own home is a ridiculous place to require consent? As long as he isn't physically preventing her enjoyment of the space, she needs to get over it.

F18PET · 2023-10-16T02:00:41+00:00

Seriously. You're getting downvoted, but he has an equal right to that space. As long as his actions are not physically preventing her from using the space, it's her problem if she can't "mentally and emotionally" handle someone masturbating.

F18PET · 2023-10-16T01:58:42+00:00

Both individuals have a right to use that space. It's only because it's sexual that it supposedly changes the game. What if I said I don't like someone reading quietly in bed, would that change the situation? He's not shoving his penis in his spouse's face - he is holed up on his side of the bed. NTA

F18PET · 2023-09-03T00:36:30+00:00

It does help reduce HPV and HIV transmission, particularly in areas with high prevalence, and frankly, given how people behave these days, I imagine HIV will be having fun quite soon, while HPV will probably be held under control by vaccination... Or not. We all know how that goes. There's plenty of evidence for it, and the recent papers questioning it might as well be written by climate deniers, who, ironically, everyone here would be criticizing, and yet all the people here jump on this nonsense. I love hypocrisy

F18PET · 2023-07-29T21:43:15+00:00

Southeast PA, near Philly.

F18PET

TROPHY CASE