They're still in denial about that. Had one just a couple days ago saying that the gas price increases are just the regular price increase in the spring.

There's a bit of subversion here though: Going by my uncle, social security disability has made it even easier: They automatically reject every application the first time.

I was just reading a story where a woman ended up in jail six months, extradited to North Dakota from Tennessee.
The only evidence it was her was an AI facial recognition match between her social media/driver's license and the video of the actual suspect.
It wasn't until the first court date that the public defender got her financial records showing she was in Tennessee when the crime actually happened.
Then they kicked a southern state person out into ND winter without proper clothing, not even bothering to get her a ride back home.

She lost her house and car due to non-payment because she couldn't pay bills while in jail.

Looking, she'll probably end up with a $2-3M settlement.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Coll story, but what does it have to do with whether or not a militia is "well regulated" or not? It really doesn't matter who was swanning around Michigan chasing Mormons, the only thing that does matter is whether or not they were well trained and equipped while doing so. That's what "well regulated" means. A "militia" can be a bunch of randos with a zip gun between the five of them led by a guy who lasted a week in basic before being sent home. A "well regulated militia" is an effective, disciplined, military force.

You've done nothing to refute either of the two points I made above, what am I pretending it means that it does not?

I am certainly not advocating for armed resistance against the government, nor am I suggesting that things would go well for anyone who tried, but "you can't win" is just... ignorant of history. The Viet Cong and Al-Qaeda both "won" against the US military, though the costs were astronomical for both them and the civilians caught in the middle.

Your assertion that "you can't win if you fight the government, therefore the only legal use of arms is hunting" is also nonsensical. There are more lawful uses of arms than that. Self defense springs to mind. Sporting purposes that don't involve killing something (e.g. target shooting) is another. Physical security of a building a third.

Take a hard look at definitions 3 and 4 in your own link to see why you're confidently incorrect. A militia is "well regulated" in the same manner as a clock.

See Federalist 29:

Certainly the militia is also "regulated" as per your definition, and the constitution provides for that (Art I, Sec 8) and no one is disputing such. But the term "well regulated militia" means something else, and that is "well trained and equipped." And the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, is in support of the goal of having a well regulated militia, and not subordinate to it.

It certainly did not. A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped, and your untrained farmers with minimal equipment led by former private Smith does not meet that definition. Nonetheless, the right to keep and bear arms itself is reserved to the people--the perceived need for a well regulated militia is the impetus for said right, not the beneficiary of it.

Horseshit. The Continental Congress was interested in and had Belton present his repeating flintlock to them. The Puckle gun had been around for more than half a century. The idea that "they didn't envision" that arms would evolve over time is just not supported by history.

I actually do, it is just that you don't understand the analogy.
Basically, by forgiving the loans, it's the equivalent of the government refunding the money the person was supposed to pay back.
Keep in mind that people sometimes have to declare loan forgiveness as income.

I say take the cash and open a new company under different management and build more offshore wind turbines, now that you have a billion.

Double checking, the "at least double" and "slightly higher capacity factor" might be considered inaccurate.
Onshore vs offshore wind energy: types of wind energy, difference and cost
This site suggests a 43% price increase per MW, but capacity factor goes to 38% from 24%, a 58% increase.

So if we take $3.13M per MW divided by .24 = $13M per capacity factor adjusted continuous MW for onshore.
$4.49M per MW for offshore divided by .38 = $12M per MW adjusted.

Though NREL 2024 has levelized cost of energy for offshore fixed bottom wind turbines being almost 3 times the price as land based.

IRENA has on-shore at around $0.042 per kWh, and offshore around 0.062, around 50% more.

My thinking is thus that a mix of both might be good, as the more install areas we have, the more level the production is likely to be, reducing the need for storage. Plus, would depend on whether or not the power provider has good on-land areas for wind turbines, or good offshore areas. Texas has a lot of good spots on land, while states like New York, or the east coast in general, may not.

Double checking, the "at least double" and "slightly higher capacity factor" might be considered inaccurate enough to downmod.
Onshore vs offshore wind energy: types of wind energy, difference and cost
Suggests a 43% price increase per MW, but capacity factor goes to 38% from 24%, a 58% increase.

So if we take $3.13M per MW divided by .24 = $13M per capacity factor adjusted continuous MW for onshore.
$4.49M per MW for offshore divided by .38 = $12M per MW adjusted.

This makes offshore slightly cheaper.

Remember when the Supreme Court ruled Biden's idea to forgive or "refund" people's student loans was unconstitutional?

I think this should be ruled unconstitutional. It is congress that has the power of the purse, Trump shouldn't be able to pay anything for something like this without their approval.
If he does cause it to be paid, it should come out of his own personal finances.

you know, living is harmful to your life, every day is getting you closer to death. Eating many foods is harmful, drinking many things, breathing the air in many parts of the world and during different weather conditions. Having sex may be harmful, it can degrade your quality of life in the long term.

There are millions of harmful things, you will die and everyone else as well. I am not proposing for everyone to do everything, I am saying - if you enjoy it, don't allow people to dictate to you, do it.