America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

My point was that given that the conceoc of an army of the people, for the people, funded by the people, it ticks modem boxes on the socialist concept side than capitalist side.

So this is your argument then? Again, I'm just trying to follow it. Your argument is that socialism combats corporations from going above the law and creating their own military and police forces by establishing a national military and police force for the purpose of protecting the citizenry and that such a force is socialist in nature?

The only thing that makes clearer is that you seem to want to carry out a reduction exercise to the point it hits the part you wish to blame.

Then you're not actually thinking about what I'm saying. You're picking sides here... government... corporation... they're all people. They do what people do, try to tilt the game in their favor. The more the game can be tilted, the more they will try.

Do you honestly think that corporate entities are all that benign?

That if government didn't restrict them they wouldn't still try and leverage government?

That the temptations to get government to, rather than being neutral, act in the direct favour of them wouldnt exist?

Yea they would. But the more involved the government is, the more corporations will lobby. Let me give you an example. Some chinese toy manufacturers were selling kids toys in the US with lead in them (I think it was in the paint). This was a few years back. There was a brief uproar over it, facebook crusaders, and ultimately some advertising changes where the companies who weren't doing this would advertise that they weren't doing it (on Amazon or ebay or whatever) and the problem was solved. Matel saw an opportunity though, and lobbied congress to add an expensive testing process to childrens' toys so that this sort of thing could never happen again.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/13/business/fi-toys13
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/news/companies/cpsc/

In August 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which gave makers and sellers of children's products such as toys, clothing and books have until Feb. 10, 2009 to comply with stricter standards for permissible lead, phthalate content limits and other mandatory safety requirements.

This was obviously for the safety of the children right? Not exactly. The new requirements require expensive testing, proving that the toys are lead free. Matel wanted to have to pay for the expensive testing to make sure their toys were lead free. Why would they want that? Well, two reasons.

1) To try to reclaim brand trust. If they push for new safety legislation requirements that require everyone to do what they were pretty much going to have to do to prove to customers that they were on the up and up again, then they make their own PR problem the problem of all of their competitors evenly.

2) To put small business out of business. Small toy manufacturers in the US who aren't using lead paint (and wouldn't dream of it), are not going to be able to afford the expensive certification processes. It shifts the playing field toward only the larger businesses. If you're big, and you have lots of little competitors, shouldering a little extra red tape is no problem for you but can absolutely obliterate your competition.

PR nightmare turned into profit.

Now, if the US government never gets involved in situations like this, it would be very difficult, expensive, and probably a waste for Matel to spend time lobbying for toy standards increases, especially to cover for their own misdeeds. But the US government gets involved in situations like this ALL THE TIME. It was virtually guaranteed that they were going to pass legislation. All Matel needed to do was try to nudge that legislation in their favor a little extra. Maybe require a specific expensive testing machine. It was practically guaranteed success. No big lobbying push, no huge money outlays, easy for a corporation to justify a piece of someone's salary.

If Matel stands to gain $10 million annually from a piece of legislation, but they estimate that it will take $50 million and 5 years of effort to get it, they probably don't even finish estimating that. They probably don't even try. But if they estimate that they can spend $500k on a piece of legislation that is bound to go through... well then... $500k it is!

Once again it does not matter whether you think this toy legislation was important, or good, or necessary. The question is where does the lobbying come from... it comes from the existence of government intervention. A backdrop of people who want to use government for their own purposes must be assumed. The country is full of people after all.

 

[Joey D]

So this really confuses me: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/09/us-...-reportedly-stuns-world-health-officials.html

Ecuador brings up a resolution to the WHO to promote breastfeeding. Great. Then the US gets its knickers in a twist and threatens sanctions, removal of aid, and removal of the military over it.

If this article to be believed, the reason behind this is due to some lobby from an infant formula company, which is ludicrous. In no way should a corporation dictate economic sanctions on another country. Lobbyists really are the scum of politics, even more so than the politicians themselves and that takes some effort.

Granted we shouldn't be giving Ecuador aid anyways, but I feel strongly that we shouldn't give our money away to anyone. But that's beside the point.

Also, I can't think of a legitimate reason not to endorse breastfeeding. Working in healthcare for several years now it seems like the best route to go for your child. No, you don't have to do it, nor did this WHO resolution say you had too.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Any guesses on the SCOTUS pick tonight? Trump is unpredictable at best but my money is on Amy Coney Barrett.

EDIT: I just got home. If the pick has already been made ignore the above prediction

EDIT: It's Kavanaugh. If digital media are to be believed it's a positive choice for Roe v. Wade supporters.

 

[TexRex]

Can anyone else simultaneously pat the top of their head with one hand and rub their torso with the other?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Looks like Trump has hit yet another home run with Kavanaugh.

 

[Joey D]

I don't like him mainly because he thinks sitting presidents should be exempt from criminal investigations. That's shady and no one should be immune from criminal investigations, especially the leader of the country.

But I doubt he'll get confirmed. He's too anti-abortion to sway some of the more moderate Republicans.

Really though, as long as he sticks to the Constitution I probably won't care too much. It's when a judge starts interjecting their religion or personal beliefs in cases, then it's a problem. We have a document that spells it all out, we should stick to that document.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't like him mainly because he thinks sitting presidents should be exempt from criminal investigations. That's shady and no one should be immune from criminal investigations, especially the leader of the country.

But I doubt he'll get confirmed. He's too anti-abortion to sway some of the more moderate Republicans.

Really though, as long as he sticks to the Constitution I probably won't care too much. It's when a judge starts interjecting their religion or personal beliefs in cases, then it's a problem. We have a document that spells it all out, we should stick to that document.

Most judges interject personal beliefs from time to time otherwise there wouldn't be so many 5-4 votes split down predictable ideological lines with basically the same judges always on one side or the other. I think Amy Coney Barrett is the backup here and maybe Trump is throwing up a guy he knows will be challenged and possibly rejected and can then bring out the super mom SCOTUS pick that Democrats would have a much harder time rejecting. They are the woman's party of choice after all.

The link you provided doesn't advocate the President by exempt from criminal investigations as you assert, but rather:

With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred while the President is in office.

Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics.

It's also important to note that he's suggesting it's the job of Congress to enact legislation to do this, not the responsibility of the court.

 

[TexRex]

basically

4/10?

 

[Johnnypenso]

4/10?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices

 

[Sanji Himura]

I don't like him mainly because he thinks sitting presidents should be exempt from criminal investigations. That's shady and no one should be immune from criminal investigations, especially the leader of the country.

But I doubt he'll get confirmed. He's too anti-abortion to sway some of the more moderate Republicans.

Really though, as long as he sticks to the Constitution I probably won't care too much. It's when a judge starts interjecting their religion or personal beliefs in cases, then it's a problem. We have a document that spells it all out, we should stick to that document.

Two things:

1. There is supposed to be no religious test for nominees. By making abortion an issue, ANYONE who does so IS making it a test. Afterall, several Democrats worship Roe V. Wade. (Article VI)

2. Roe V. Wade turned a states right into a federal issue:

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. (Amendment 10)

I don't see abortion a federal issue according to the Constitution, nay, but rather a states rights issue. To put it this way, here is what Congress CAN do: (Article 1 section 9)

- To lay and collect taxes to pay for the debts of the United States
- To borrow money on the credit of the United States
- To regulate commerce with Foreign Nations, among several States, and with Indian Tribes
- To establish a rule of Naturalization and to make laws on the subject of bankruptcies
- To coin Money, to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin and fix the Standard of Weights and measures.
- To provide punishment of counterfeiting.
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
- To regulate copyrights and patients
- To establish courts that are inferior to the Supreme Court
- To define and punish piracy (on the high seas)
- To raise armies, but not for a term longer than two years
- To maintain an Navy
- To establish rules for the Government and Regulation of land and Naval forces
- To provide for the calling forth of the Militia to enforce the laws of the Union, supress Insurrections and Repel invasions
- To provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia
- To exercise exclusive legislation over Washington DC
- To make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution of the foregoing powers (in other words, if the laws fit into one of the above categories, then it is Congress' job to get them passed)

Here is what is banned from the states (article 1, section 10):

- Enter a treaty, alliance or confederation
- Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal
- Coin Money
- Emit Bills of Credit
- Make anything but gold and silver coin legal tender
- Pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law or any law impairing the obligation of contracts
- Grant any Title of Nobility
- lay any imposts or duties on imports and exports (without the consent of Congress) EXCEPT what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws
- Produce of all Duties and Imposts laid by any state on Imports or exports shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.
- No state shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of Tonnage
- No state shall keep troops and ships of war in times of peace without the consent of Congress
- No state shall enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a Foreign power
- Engage in War unless actually invaded or in other such imminent danger that will not admit delay.

 

[UKMikey]

1. There is supposed to be no religious test for nominees. By making abortion an issue, ANYONE who does so IS making it a test. Afterall, several Democrats worship Roe V. Wade. (Article VI)

 

[Joey D]

Two things:

1. There is supposed to be no religious test for nominees. By making abortion an issue, ANYONE who does so IS making it a test. Afterall, several Democrats worship Roe V. Wade. (Article VI)

2. Roe V. Wade turned a states right into a federal issue:

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. (Amendment 10)

I don't see abortion a federal issue according to the Constitution, nay, but rather a states rights issue. To put it this way, here is what Congress CAN do: (Article 1 section 9)

- To lay and collect taxes to pay for the debts of the United States
- To borrow money on the credit of the United States
- To regulate commerce with Foreign Nations, among several States, and with Indian Tribes
- To establish a rule of Naturalization and to make laws on the subject of bankruptcies
- To coin Money, to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin and fix the Standard of Weights and measures.
- To provide punishment of counterfeiting.
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
- To regulate copyrights and patients
- To establish courts that are inferior to the Supreme Court
- To define and punish piracy (on the high seas)
- To raise armies, but not for a term longer than two years
- To maintain an Navy
- To establish rules for the Government and Regulation of land and Naval forces
- To provide for the calling forth of the Militia to enforce the laws of the Union, supress Insurrections and Repel invasions
- To provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia
- To exercise exclusive legislation over Washington DC
- To make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution of the foregoing powers (in other words, if the laws fit into one of the above categories, then it is Congress' job to get them passed)

Here is what is banned from the states (article 1, section 10):

- Enter a treaty, alliance or confederation
- Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal
- Coin Money
- Emit Bills of Credit
- Make anything but gold and silver coin legal tender
- Pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law or any law impairing the obligation of contracts
- Grant any Title of Nobility
- lay any imposts or duties on imports and exports (without the consent of Congress) EXCEPT what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws
- Produce of all Duties and Imposts laid by any state on Imports or exports shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.
- No state shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of Tonnage
- No state shall keep troops and ships of war in times of peace without the consent of Congress
- No state shall enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a Foreign power
- Engage in War unless actually invaded or in other such imminent danger that will not admit delay.

I agree abortion should be an issue at the state level. However, what worries me is if the courts attempt to outlaw it at a federal level. I don't have a huge opinion regarding abortion, but I think it's really up to the person and their physician to decide.

And there should be a religious test. Separating church and state is one of the founding principals of the country. Anyone set to look at the laws of the land should be able to put their religion aside and see this. Abortion is largely a religious issue too since there's not really any reason other than that to outlaw it.

 

[Danoff]

Two things:

1. There is supposed to be no religious test for nominees. By making abortion an issue, ANYONE who does so IS making it a test. Afterall, several Democrats worship Roe V. Wade. (Article VI)

2. Roe V. Wade turned a states right into a federal issue:

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. (Amendment 10)

I don't see abortion a federal issue according to the Constitution, nay, but rather a states rights issue. To put it this way, here is what Congress CAN do: (Article 1 section 9)

- To lay and collect taxes to pay for the debts of the United States
- To borrow money on the credit of the United States
- To regulate commerce with Foreign Nations, among several States, and with Indian Tribes
- To establish a rule of Naturalization and to make laws on the subject of bankruptcies
- To coin Money, to regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin and fix the Standard of Weights and measures.
- To provide punishment of counterfeiting.
- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads
- To regulate copyrights and patients
- To establish courts that are inferior to the Supreme Court
- To define and punish piracy (on the high seas)
- To raise armies, but not for a term longer than two years
- To maintain an Navy
- To establish rules for the Government and Regulation of land and Naval forces
- To provide for the calling forth of the Militia to enforce the laws of the Union, supress Insurrections and Repel invasions
- To provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining of the militia
- To exercise exclusive legislation over Washington DC
- To make all laws that shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution of the foregoing powers (in other words, if the laws fit into one of the above categories, then it is Congress' job to get them passed)

Here is what is banned from the states (article 1, section 10):

- Enter a treaty, alliance or confederation
- Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal
- Coin Money
- Emit Bills of Credit
- Make anything but gold and silver coin legal tender
- Pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law or any law impairing the obligation of contracts
- Grant any Title of Nobility
- lay any imposts or duties on imports and exports (without the consent of Congress) EXCEPT what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws
- Produce of all Duties and Imposts laid by any state on Imports or exports shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.
- No state shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of Tonnage
- No state shall keep troops and ships of war in times of peace without the consent of Congress
- No state shall enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a Foreign power
- Engage in War unless actually invaded or in other such imminent danger that will not admit delay.

I agree abortion should be an issue at the state level. However, what worries me is if the courts attempt to outlaw it at a federal level. I don't have a huge opinion regarding abortion, but I think it's really up to the person and their physician to decide.

And there should be a religious test. Separating church and state is one of the founding principals of the country. Anyone set to look at the laws of the land should be able to put their religion aside and see this. Abortion is largely a religious issue too since there's not really any reason other than that to outlaw it.

I kinda don't see why abortion should be a state's issue. It's a human rights issue. Either you think the embryo/fetus is a person, in which case its life is federally protected by the constitution, or you think that the embryo/fetus is not a person, in which case the mother's rights are federally protected by the constitution. States shouldn't have the power to legalize child murder, and they shouldn't have the power to make it illegal for someone to have something removed from their body.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I agree abortion should be an issue at the state level. However, what worries me is if the courts attempt to outlaw it at a federal level. I don't have a huge opinion regarding abortion, but I think it's really up to the person and their physician to decide.

And there should be a religious test. Separating church and state is one of the founding principals of the country. Anyone set to look at the laws of the land should be able to put their religion aside and see this. Abortion is largely a religious issue too since there's not really any reason other than that to outlaw it.

You'll need a constitutional amendment to make religious tests possible for federal employees and I don't think that is happening any time soon. Why can't the questioning simply be along the lines of "can you set aside your personal views in your role as SCOTUS and uphold the Constitution of the United States"? That would cover the separation of church and state. Why does this specific line of unconstitutional questioning need emphasis?

 

[huskeR32]

1. There is supposed to be no religious test for nominees. By making abortion an issue, ANYONE who does so IS making it a test. Afterall, several Democrats worship Roe V. Wade. (Article VI)

2. Roe V. Wade turned a states right into a federal issue:

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. (Amendment 10)

I don't see abortion a federal issue according to the Constitution, nay, but rather a states rights issue. To put it this way, here is what Congress CAN do: (Article 1 section 9)

stuff

Here is what is banned from the states (article 1, section 10):

other stuff

Funny that your zeal for protecting the poor little states from the federal government doesn't also extend to protecting the individual from states, which is essentially what Roe did.

Seems to me that the argument against abortion essentially comes down to "I want the smallest government possible that still allows me to impose my ideas onto somebody else."

--

You'll need a constitutional amendment to make religious tests possible for federal employees and I don't think that is happening any time soon. Why can't the questioning simply be along the lines of "can you set aside your personal views in your role as SCOTUS and uphold the Constitution of the United States"? That would cover the separation of church and state. Why does this specific line of unconstitutional questioning need emphasis?

Because this country has a history of struggling with that separation? What's wrong with acknowledging that and trying to better safeguard against it?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because this country has a history of struggling with that separation? What's wrong with acknowledging that and trying to better safeguard against it?

Like I said, you'll need a constitutional amendment to do that and I think I'm pretty safe in predicting that's not going to happen in my lifetime. If you get to the Supreme Court nominee level your predilections and adherence to the constitution should be pretty clear in your judicial record. Seems a little far-fetched shall we say, to think you're going to be able to throw out a "gotcha" question in a senate confirmation hearing that is going to contradict a couple of decades of judicial record.

 

[Joey D]

I kinda don't see why abortion should be a state's issue. It's a human rights issue. Either you think the embryo/fetus is a person, in which case its life is federally protected by the constitution, or you think that the embryo/fetus is not a person, in which case the mother's rights are federally protected by the constitution. States shouldn't have the power to legalize child murder, and they shouldn't have the power to make it illegal for someone to have something removed from their body.

I suppose, but if it's going to be a legal issue it seems like the states should have the power over it than the feds. At the root, I firmly believe that there shouldn't really be a law around it. It's a medical procedure and it really should be between the patient and doctor. To me, it creating a law around abortion is like creating a law around appendectomy. It's really up to the patient whether or not they believe it's moral or just to have the procedure done.

You'll need a constitutional amendment to make religious tests possible for federal employees and I don't think that is happening any time soon. Why can't the questioning simply be along the lines of "can you set aside your personal views in your role as SCOTUS and uphold the Constitution of the United States"? That would cover the separation of church and state. Why does this specific line of unconstitutional questioning need emphasis?

Fair enough, but I really don't think a justice would give an honest answer to that since I don't believe they can set aside their personal views. If they could, then there wouldn't be laws or an attempt at a law that really only comes down to "well the Bible says it's wrong". Take same-sex marriage for example, there's nothing saying it should be illegal besides some ancient text, yet we still argue it for some reason. Really, it should come down to if you allow people to marry (thus entering a contract) you should allow anyone to marry anyone as long as both parties agree to the terms of the contract.

 

[Danoff]

I suppose, but if it's going to be a legal issue it seems like the states should have the power over it than the feds. At the root, I firmly believe that there shouldn't really be a law around it. It's a medical procedure and it really should be between the patient and doctor. To me, it creating a law around abortion is like creating a law around appendectomy. It's really up to the patient whether or not they believe it's moral or just to have the procedure done.

Yea, but also it would violate your rights for states to create a law banning appendectomies. There are really only two ways to look at it - either it's murder or it's not. If it's not, states can't ban it. If it is, states can't allow it. The only wiggle room in there is for folks who think it becomes murder somewhere along the lines of gestation, but the binary nature of it still holds for either side of wherever that line gets drawn.

Here's a slightly different way to think about it. How are states going to ban it? By appealing to the fundamental human rights of the fetus. That's a constitutional argument.

 

[Joey D]

Yea, but also it would violate your rights for states to create a law banning appendectomies. There are really only two ways to look at it - either it's murder or it's not. If it's not, states can't ban it. If it is, states can't allow it. The only wiggle room in there is for folks who think it becomes murder somewhere along the lines of gestation, but the binary nature of it still holds for either side of wherever that line gets drawn.

Here's a slightly different way to think about it. How are states going to ban it? By appealing to the fundamental human rights of the fetus. That's a constitutional argument.

Ah ok, that makes sense now.

 

[Touring Mars]

The brass band at Blenheim Palace is playing 'Amazing Grace' to welcome Trump to the UK... what a 🤬 joke!

 

[ryzno]

Well, that was an interesting/entertaining Congressional Hearing yesterday...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well, that was an interesting/entertaining Congressional Hearing yesterday...

I was watching some of it in the background with a buddy of mine yesterday between service calls. He asked me what I thought about it. I said, "Let them eat cake". While trillions of dollars hang in the balance and a new world order is unfolding, CNN had literally non-stop coverage of a not insignificant portion of the American legislative process being focused on a half dozen texts exchanged between cheating lovers at the FBI. Along the banner at the bottom they covered the other breaking and significant news like Stormy Daniels being arrested at a strip club.

 

[ryzno]

I was watching some of it in the background with a buddy of mine yesterday between service calls. He asked me what I thought about it. I said, "Let them eat cake". While trillions of dollars hang in the balance and a new world order is unfolding, CNN had literally non-stop coverage of a not insignificant portion of the American legislative process being focused on a half dozen texts exchanged between cheating lovers at the FBI. Along the banner at the bottom they covered the other breaking and significant news like Stormy Daniels being arrested at a strip club.

She's going to be at the Pink Pony down here next week! I'd go check her out but I'm not a fan of fake boobs.

 

[Johnnypenso]

She's going to be at the Pink Pony down here next week! I'd go check her out but I'm not a fan of fake boobs.

She was in my town for a lecture a few weeks ago but I missed it. Once you get past the media hype and nonsense, underneath is a very smart business woman capitalizing on her opportunity while the fire is hot. 'Murica!!!!

 

[huskeR32]

I was watching some of it in the background with a buddy of mine yesterday between service calls. He asked me what I thought about it. I said, "Let them eat cake". While trillions of dollars hang in the balance and a new world order is unfolding, CNN had literally non-stop coverage of a not insignificant portion of the American legislative process being focused on a half dozen texts exchanged between cheating lovers at the FBI. Along the banner at the bottom they covered the other breaking and significant news like Stormy Daniels being arrested at a strip club.

Is your main gripe that GOP Congressmen wasted a bunch of time and money on a frivolous charade, or that CNN covered it too much?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is your main gripe that GOP Congressmen wasted a bunch of time and money on a frivolous charade, or that CNN covered it too much?

You presume too much. There's no gripe.

 

[TexRex]

You presume too much. There's no gripe.

Understandable though, right? "All of this stuff happening and the attention is focused on cheating lovers"* seems an awful lot like an assertion that the attention is misplaced, and apparently it's still pertinent to that side that they've committed adultery, presumably that their willingness to bump uglies is indicative of a propensity to champion a sinister cabal.

Really though, I'm surprised that you responded at all considering solicitation(s) for explanation you've disregarded recently; but I guess the implication wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

*Paraphrased rather than a direct quote.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Understandable though, right? "All of this stuff happening and the attention is focused on cheating lovers"* seems an awful lot like an assertion that the attention is misplaced, and apparently it's still pertinent to that side that they've committed adultery, presumably that their willingness to bump uglies is indicative of a propensity to champion a sinister cabal.

Really though, I'm surprised that you responded at all considering solicitation(s) for explanation you've disregarded recently; but I guess the implication wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

*Paraphrased rather than a direct quote.

You also presume too much.

 

[TexRex]

You also presume too much.

Then please explain, because fervent language regarding one subject and cavalier language regarding the other suggests an imbalance.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Then please explain, because fervent language regarding one subject and cavalier language regarding the other suggests an imbalance.

Pretty simple. Two friends having a conversation and I shared my observations with him. I paraphrased it for viewing pleasure here. No griping involved.