Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The Dad gives his teenage daughter a prepaid debit card. He had to be a co-signer for it as she had no credit rating. He tells her she has the authority to use it whenever she wants. The thing is that, as a prepaid card, there is no balance on it. The father never deposited any money into the account.

Which would be such an obviously stupid thing to do that anyone looking at the situation would say "nope, we must have the story wrong". If your interpretation of the law is "you can spend money to do this, but you can't spend any money" then your interpretation is obviously not reasonable. The ONLY reason anyone is taking that interpretation is that doing so overturns a law they dislike for political reasons. This isn't legitimate concern for the process of allocating and spending money, it's taking any opportunity, no matter how obscure or petty, to make an attack on the law.

No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).

 cuda1179 wrote:
No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).

And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required, until this lawsuit was filed?

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).

And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required, until this lawsuit was filed?

To quote Nancy Pelosi, "no I haven't read the law. This law is so important we must pass it quickly so we can find out what's in it".

Let's just be honest. This isn't the only hiccup in the ACA. It was a rushed, bloated, errored attempt that fell flat on its face more than once when trying to deliver on its promises.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).

And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required, until this lawsuit was filed?

To quote Nancy Pelosi, "no I haven't read the law. This law is so important we must pass it quickly so we can find out what's in it".

Let's just be honest. This isn't the only hiccup in the ACA. It was a rushed, bloated, errored attempt that fell flat on its face more than once when trying to deliver on its promises.

And again that quote comes up without context. It's there a bingo square for that?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).

And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required, until this lawsuit was filed?

To quote Nancy Pelosi, "no I haven't read the law. This law is so important we must pass it quickly so we can find out what's in it".

Let's just be honest. This isn't the only hiccup in the ACA. It was a rushed, bloated, errored attempt that fell flat on its face more than once when trying to deliver on its promises.

And again that quote comes up without context. It's there a bingo square for that?

You seriously don't know where that quote came from????? My God, Pelosi was criticized for months for making that statement, and yes it was about the Affordable Care Act.

The simple fact remains that MOST bills get passed without being fully read. Michel Moore did a documentary that pointed that out. The ACA was a monster and even other members of congress have admitted they didn't fully read it or comprehend all the nuances.

 cuda1179 wrote:
You seriously don't know where that quote came from?????

Yes, we all know where that quote came from and it had been discussed to death in the recently closed Political Junkie thread.

Also, you didn't quote her because what she actually said was this:

You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.

But please, continue to use that ten second out-of-context soundbite that Fox News aired ad nauseam.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
You seriously don't know where that quote came from?????

Yes, we all know where that quote came from and it had been discussed to death in the recently closed Political Junkie thread.

Also, you didn't quote her because what she actually said was this:

You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.

But please, continue to use that ten second out-of-context soundbite that Fox News aired ad nauseam.

The fact that it was taken out of context is a bit of a moot point. The question being asked was "And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required?"

The answer is, yes, that very well might be the case. This wouldn't be the first time a bill got passed were someone did, or did not, have the authority enforce laws they thought they did or didn't have. Proofreaders often don't check these things and lead to legal loopholes. (funny, as this is a RAW argument that's not in the 40k rules forum).

I remember a while back here in Iowa there was a man charged with statutory rape. Our age of consent laws at the time stated that (paraphrased) "It is illegal to have sexual contact with any child under the age of 16". This man's boyfriend was 15, yet it was still legal to sleep with him. Why? State law stated that "a child" will be defined in all other laws as anyone under the age of 14. Thus, our consent laws literally meant "illegal to have sexual contact with anyone under that age of 16 that is also under the age of 14." Because of this the case was dismissed and the dismissal was upheld under appeal. It didn't take them long to change the law to what it meant. I think they changed the words "any child" to "anyone".

This is a great example of how a ridiculously complex system of laws can intermingle to give unintended consequences.

 jasper76 wrote:
I am interested to know.

Are there any posters on these boards of a conservative persuasion who have decided to either

(a) not vote at all
(b) vote for Clinton instead of Trump

It's early in the game, and I wonder if people's responses might change over time.

The opposite for me. I usually go with Gary Johnson, but with two at least two more Supreme Court seats likely to come up, it's too important to go third-party. The Hair all the way.

Seaward wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I am interested to know.

Are there any posters on these boards of a conservative persuasion who have decided to either

(a) not vote at all
(b) vote for Clinton instead of Trump

It's early in the game, and I wonder if people's responses might change over time.

The opposite for me. I usually go with Gary Johnson, but with two at least two more Supreme Court seats likely to come up, it's too important to go third-party. The Hair all the way.

THIS!

This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if the situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.

 cuda1179 wrote:
This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if there situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.

What happened to the idea that the supreme court is meant to be unbiased and independent of political parties? Are you now abandoning this idea? Should we replace the nomination system with having the supreme court be just another congressional committee, with its membership split between democrats and republicans according to the most recent election?

 cuda1179 wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I am interested to know.

Are there any posters on these boards of a conservative persuasion who have decided to either

(a) not vote at all
(b) vote for Clinton instead of Trump

It's early in the game, and I wonder if people's responses might change over time.

The opposite for me. I usually go with Gary Johnson, but with two at least two more Supreme Court seats likely to come up, it's too important to go third-party. The Hair all the way.

THIS!

This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if the situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.

The problem with this (besides the obvious fact that Trump is a moron) is that Trump doesn't consistently lean right, he leans whatever direction he feels like at the moment. He has gone against what is considered the Right on several issues such as birth control and social security. You have no way of predicting what kind of justice he would appoint to the supreme court and no guarantee that this judge will keep the balance.

 the Signless wrote:
You have no way of predicting what kind of justice he would appoint to the supreme court and no guarantee that this judge will keep the balance.

Oh, I know exactly what kind of justice he would appoint: whatever would make the most publicity for himself. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he appointed himself to the supreme court.

Our New Emperor will probably anoint Hilary Clinton as the next Supreme Court Pontiff, as an Executive Act of National Bipartisan Unification.

Its gonna be terrific :/

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if there situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.

What happened to the idea that the supreme court is meant to be unbiased and independent of political parties? Are you now abandoning this idea? Should we replace the nomination system with having the supreme court be just another congressional committee, with its membership split between democrats and republicans according to the most recent election?

I'd love for the SC to be totally unbiased and non political. I'm just a realist that recognizes that it won't happen. I'd rather two opposing views cancel each other out and have one or two moderates as swing votes decide and issue that having it lopsided one way or the other. Lesser of two evils, just like this election.

While I don't know for a fact that Trump would appoint a conservative justice, I am almost certain Hillary would. Just playing the Vegas odds here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news Hillary in the spotlight for questionable donations. Looks like she accepted $130 million from Arab countries.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/

Let the countdown begin before she starts being labeled as a ISIS mole.

You realise that's not a scandal right?

I mean everyone tries to get in bed with the rich gulf states.

I.e. why you never see David Cameron complaining about the inhumanity of Saudia Arabia beheading more people than ISIS.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
You realise that's not a scandal right?

I mean everyone tries to get in bed with the rich gulf states.

I.e. why you never see David Cameron complaining about the inhumanity of Saudia Arabia beheading more people than ISIS.

Scandal, no. Issue, yes. Both Trump and Sanders have been beating Clinton with where she gets her campaign money.

So.....over meddling and over threatening government, much?

(Just so all know my feelings)
I am in the camps of:
1) use the restroom that matches your actual reproductive parts
And....
2) Make more individual neutral bathrooms available (like the "family" designated bathrooms you often see)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/report-obama-administration-to-tell-public-schools-to-let-transgender-students-use-bathrooms-their-choice.html

The Obama administration will send a letter to every public school district in the country telling them to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity, as opposed to their birth certificate.

The letter, which is signed by officials at the Justice Department and the Department of Education, will be sent out to the districts on Friday.

While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.

"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement.

Officials say the letter is meant to clarify expectations of school districts that receive funding from the federal government. Educators have been seeking guidance on how to comply with Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, Education Secretary John B. King said in a statement.

“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” King said. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

Just like it was threatening and meddling government that forced desegregation of the schools...

And threatening and over bearing when they wanted states to adopt the 55 mph speed limit.

Why exactly do we have srates rights when the government is just going to come in and make them adopt policies "or else"....

Because it is politically conveinent for the states to accept money fron the Federal government while keeping their taxes low but complain about Federal taxes being so 'high'.

The states have the right to refuse the money and the strings that go along with it. However, then the states would have to raise taxes to get the money or go without stuff that their citizens want. Neither of which will work.

It also helps that all the things mentioned are good things that should happen regardless.

In *your* opinion they are good.....let's clarify that.

Good? I mean, I'm not exactly sure how it's a bad thing to tell some of the more egregious states to stop being dicks to kids.

 Goliath wrote:
Good? I mean, I'm not exactly sure how it's a bad thing to tell some of the more egregious states to stop being dicks to kids.

Exactly. I haven't seen one good argument for anti-transgender regulations.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
And threatening and over bearing when they wanted states to adopt the 55 mph speed limit.

But...but...I can't drive 55....

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So.....over meddling and over threatening government, much?

(Just so all know my feelings)
I am in the camps of:
1) use the restroom that matches your actual reproductive parts
And....
2) Make more individual neutral bathrooms available (like the "family" designated bathrooms you often see)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/report-obama-administration-to-tell-public-schools-to-let-transgender-students-use-bathrooms-their-choice.html

The Obama administration will send a letter to every public school district in the country telling them to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity, as opposed to their birth certificate.

The letter, which is signed by officials at the Justice Department and the Department of Education, will be sent out to the districts on Friday.

While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.

"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement.

Officials say the letter is meant to clarify expectations of school districts that receive funding from the federal government. Educators have been seeking guidance on how to comply with Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, Education Secretary John B. King said in a statement.

“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” King said. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

This will have to adjudicated. Already the SC and DOJ are suing. Other jurisdictions may also initiate language. The DOJ is claiming "sex" which is protected under Title IX equates to "gender." The law and Congress are silent on the definition (as different definitions did not exist at the time generally), so this will have to be adjudicated. There is a strong chance it may be found to not be correct and the DOJ having no legislative authority.

While to me it is much ado about nothing, the extent with which the DOJ arbitrarily moved forward on this issue is breathtaking, which is my issue. On the flip side its irrelevant. The middle class is dying, we're tiptoing towards the biggest naval war since the Marianas Turkey Shoot... and the political parties are expending great capital on...this?!?!

I don't think they arbitrarily did it considering all the headlines and legislation about transgender people recently.

 skyth wrote:
Just like it was threatening and meddling government that forced desegregation of the schools...

No that was direct lawsuits relying on the post ACW amendments. Threats of money were not involved. Threat of the 82nd Airborne Division kicking the gak out of you with 7.62 ball ammo and boots to da head if you interfered, was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Goliath wrote:
Good? I mean, I'm not exactly sure how it's a bad thing to tell some of the more egregious states to stop being dicks to kids.

Well if we go by the Dallas area school board, males can now play in women's teams, and users their lockers. Interfering will be viewed as a disciplinary offense. Thats a difficulty for the women if a nonwoman wants to use their locker room. Note: this has already happened and caused a mass walkout, suits (court affirmed the T could do such and couldn't be restricted) etc. There's also
a religious angle. Person's who's faith make it a deep religious and social sin (Islam for example, nonreformed Judaism) to be around nonfamily males will be discriminated against.

Absent that, again meh its a non issue. I have no issue with Ts using the restroom of their preferred gender if it makes them safer. I have issues with dill weed boys or reverse SJWs using this as a crank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
I don't think they arbitrarily did it considering all the headlines and legislation about transgender people recently.

Arbitrary in that it wasn't an issue two months ago, and now they are pushing to make this Da Law in all 50 states. You bet it is.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
And in other news, Trump gets giggy with university student funding:

"Some of the ideas under consideration could be "revolutionary," Clovis said. Proposals currently being prepared would upend the current system of student loans, force all colleges to share the risk of such loans and make it harder for those wanting to major in the liberal arts at nonelite institutions to obtain loans. And even if some of the proposals would face a skeptical Congress, these ideas could gain considerable attention if Trump uses them to parry with his Democratic opponent."
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/13/trumps-campaign-co-chair-describes-higher-education-policies-being-developed

 jasper76 wrote:
I am interested to know.

Are there any posters on these boards of a conservative persuasion who have decided to either

(a) not vote at all
(b) vote for Clinton instead of Trump

It's early in the game, and I wonder if people's responses might change over time.

(c) vote 3rd party (or write in Deadpool), then vote conservative down-ticket.

I'm a bit of a middle ground person when comes to this issue. If there are "single occupancy restrooms" then I really don't see the issue. I feel that all of those need to be unisex anyway.
If bathrooms are adequately "privatized" I'm okay with it too. You Europeans out there might not understand this, but compared to your restroom stalls American stalls are a little less that "private". Some have no doors at all, while others just have HUGE gaps between the walls and the door. Others have half-walls that start 20 inches off the ground and stop at chin-height. This is basically "private" in name only. Once restrooms are brought up to a more European standard I'd be fine with the transsexual community using them.

When it comes to communal changing rooms and showers.....here is where I have a problem. Unless you have had the surgery to have the genitals of your preferred gender stay the heck out.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if there situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.

What happened to the idea that the supreme court is meant to be unbiased and independent of political parties? Are you now abandoning this idea? Should we replace the nomination system with having the supreme court be just another congressional committee, with its membership split between democrats and republicans according to the most recent election?

I simply want someone to read the damn law as written. Not try to "fix" Congress' or the President's mess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 the Signless wrote:
You have no way of predicting what kind of justice he would appoint to the supreme court and no guarantee that this judge will keep the balance.

Oh, I know exactly what kind of justice he would appoint: whatever would make the most publicity for himself. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he appointed himself to the supreme court.

Actually, once he realizes that the SCOTUS can stop a President, he'd elect a big-government, authoritarian jurist, imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
You realise that's not a scandal right?

I mean everyone tries to get in bed with the rich gulf states.

I.e. why you never see David Cameron complaining about the inhumanity of Saudia Arabia beheading more people than ISIS.

You do realize that it's illegal for non-American to donate to Presidential campaigns... right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Good? I mean, I'm not exactly sure how it's a bad thing to tell some of the more egregious states to stop being dicks to kids.

Exactly. I haven't seen one good argument for anti-transgender regulations.

Girls (who actually has the innie) may not want trans to change in their locker room.

They have rights too...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

While to me it is much ado about nothing, the extent with which the DOJ arbitrarily moved forward on this issue is breathtaking, which is my issue. On the flip side its irrelevant. The middle class is dying, we're tiptoing towards the biggest naval war since the Marianas Turkey Shoot... and the political parties are expending great capital on...this?!?!

We get the government we deserve.

Issue1) Fast and Furious
---AG Lorretta Lynch: meh

Issue2) Loris Lerner held in contempt
---AG Lorretta Lynch: boring

Issue3) Clinton email scandal
---AG Lorretta Lynch: wazzat?

Issue4) Stopping men who claims to be trans from wanting to use Women's restroom?
---AG Lorretta Lynch: ON IT! Dissenters is going down!