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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
and put forward laws requiring everyone to be armed at all time.

If you want to be completely technical, the Militia Act of 1792 was never fully repealed, and as such able-bodied men are supposed to own a musket/rifle, with bayonet, belt and 1/4 pound of powder, + 20 shots for their musket


(yes, I know that the law is largely negated by the Militia Act of 1903 which established the National Guard in lieu of the "state militia"... it's still fun to trot it out)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
and put forward laws requiring everyone to be armed at all time.

If you want to be completely technical, the Militia Act of 1792 was never fully repealed, and as such able-bodied men are supposed to own a musket/rifle, with bayonet, belt and 1/4 pound of powder, + 20 shots for their musket


(yes, I know that the law is largely negated by the Militia Act of 1903 which established the National Guard in lieu of the "state militia"... it's still fun to trot it out)

Which is probably why non-constitutional law should have sunset provisions. After all we still have oil subsidies from about 70 years ago that call the oil business speculative, risky, and low profit.

In other news, after 4 years of making precisely zero effort to actually improve healthcare for the average citizen the GOP has finally decided to actually craft its own health care policy. After, you know, Obamacare emulated most of the Romney/Heritage plans and the GOP decided to disown things like the medical device tax and the individual mandate.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obamacare-alternative-gop-house-114763.html

Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

It's the American government. The president doesn't matter nor the administration, because it's all more bullgak.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.

From personal experience, the only danger there is dog poo. I lived their, and never noticed them
Most parents would let their kids around those areas unnacompanied from, what, 11? They're very safe, the people are friendly: all it's missing is tourists.

If you're warned out of specific areas, it says more about the person warning you than it does about the area...
Maybe they're warning you about pickpockets? I've never noticed any, but maybe they had a bad experience once.

But thanks to fox news, everybody in Paris enjoyed the good laugh

 Stonebeard wrote:
Ah, I assumed we were using sarcasm to defend the ACA. It's the usual argument in support of it.

Its also the usual argument against it. That tends to be how arguments over controversial legislation end up within the lay community.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.

Gotta love the GOP

 jreilly89 wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.

Gotta love the GOP

Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?

 motyak wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.

Gotta love the GOP

Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?

Well, the cynic in me says that it doesn't matter the party, politicians are scumbags and thieves all around. But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans, rather than whatever farce Boehner ("Boner") has been trying to pass off the past couple of years.

To be fair to Boehner, he has actually tried to compromise many times but was stopped by the crazy hardliners in his own party.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.

Gotta love the GOP

Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?

Well, the cynic in me says that it doesn't matter the party, politicians are scumbags and thieves all around. But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans, rather than whatever farce Boehner ("Boner") has been trying to pass off the past couple of years.

O.o

I'll be the first to save I'm hardly impressed with the latest generation of Republicans in Congress... but to actually think that the Dems are more willing to "compromise" then they are... dude you're stretching hard. One just has to look at how many hundreds of bills Harry Reid has let wallow on his desk over the last few years to get an idea of that.

And Boehner let bills die, and kept the government shut down, even though he had a bill that was supported by a majority in the house because it was rejected by a majority in his caucus.

It's a two player game, but that's where Boehmer gets screwed by his own guys.

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair to Boehner, he has actually tried to compromise many times but was stopped by the crazy hardliners in his own party.

I'm not gonna give him any points for continuing the ridiculous tradition of the Hastert Rule.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

So what, exactly, is "best" for the American people?

The ACA hasn't been "good" for anyone I work with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans,

That part of you is funny.

 TheSilo wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair to Boehner, he has actually tried to compromise many times but was stopped by the crazy hardliners in his own party.

I'm not gonna give him any points for continuing the ridiculous tradition of the Hastert Rule.

It's that or get fired.

The idealistic view is that you are send to DC to represent and serve the people and if you have to fall on your sword to make sure that the will of the people is followed then you do it, your own party be damned.

But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.

 d-usa wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair to Boehner, he has actually tried to compromise many times but was stopped by the crazy hardliners in his own party.

I'm not gonna give him any points for continuing the ridiculous tradition of the Hastert Rule.

It's that or get fired.

The idealistic view is that you are send to DC to represent and serve the people and if you have to fall on your sword to make sure that the will of the people is followed then you do it, your own party be damned.

But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.

Speakers found ways to keep their job for 200+ years before Hastert came along. Pull some votes from the opposition if you must, but the Hastert Rule is what will lead to an inflated executive and a deflated Congress. It is single handedly destroying the separation of powers.

Addendum: that and the reflexive use of the filibuster.

 d-usa wrote:


But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.

Yeup.

Our system started as one where people were NOT career politicians. Simply isn't the case anymore.

So that's where this week's GOP bashing thread ended up.

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.

No, they did not. Not in the sense some people were showing them.

Some people pointed out how full of gak it was though, so I'm confused as to how that was what you took away from it.

A certain posters link to blatantly bs news that relies on people not being able to actually read another language to put forth half truths and lies did exist though. His next thread was great though! Showed a lot.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

So what, exactly, is "best" for the American people?

The ACA hasn't been "good" for anyone I work with.

It's whatever they think is best vs. something for pure political reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if they made a really bad plan just so they could attack Ds for fake hypocrisy.

 Talon of Anathrax wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.

From personal experience, the only danger there is dog poo. I lived their, and never noticed them
Most parents would let their kids around those areas unnacompanied from, what, 11? They're very safe, the people are friendly: all it's missing is tourists.

If you're warned out of specific areas, it says more about the person warning you than it does about the area...
Maybe they're warning you about pickpockets? I've never noticed any, but maybe they had a bad experience once.

But thanks to fox news, everybody in Paris enjoyed the good laugh

Most of the "No Go" type zones that I've personally read/heard about in France are actually in Marseilles, not Paris... There could be some "bad" areas of Paris, as it's a quite large city. But everything that I've looked at says the real bad areas are in Marseilles.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.

Yeup.

Our system started as one where people were NOT career politicians. Simply isn't the case anymore.

Yep, because one you're in the club, you can ride the political gravy train for life. Even if you get voted out of office, there are countless opportunities to get jobs in the political think tanks, committees, lobbies, etc. There is no real incentive for politicians to do the right thing, because they're too well insulated from the consequences of letting the country circle down the drain.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Talon of Anathrax wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.

From personal experience, the only danger there is dog poo. I lived their, and never noticed them
Most parents would let their kids around those areas unnacompanied from, what, 11? They're very safe, the people are friendly: all it's missing is tourists.

If you're warned out of specific areas, it says more about the person warning you than it does about the area...
Maybe they're warning you about pickpockets? I've never noticed any, but maybe they had a bad experience once.

But thanks to fox news, everybody in Paris enjoyed the good laugh

Most of the "No Go" type zones that I've personally read/heard about in France are actually in Marseilles, not Paris... There could be some "bad" areas of Paris, as it's a quite large city. But everything that I've looked at says the real bad areas are in Marseilles.

Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are essentially death traps.

Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.

feth auto-correct

 jreilly89 wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.

Gotta love the GOP

Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?

Well, the cynic in me says that it doesn't matter the party, politicians are scumbags and thieves all around. But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans, rather than whatever farce Boehner ("Boner") has been trying to pass off the past couple of years.

So... kind of like how instead of proposing policies favorable compromise in the State of the Union address, Obama doubled down on a number of policies that Republicans have described as non-starters? Or how Democratic presidents have started as many wars as Republican presidents? If you're going to be a cynic, at least be a consistent cynic.

 DarkLink wrote:


So... kind of like how instead of proposing policies favorable compromise in the State of the Union address, Obama doubled down on a number of policies that Republicans have described as non-starters? Or how Democratic presidents have started as many wars as Republican presidents? If you're going to be a cynic, at least be a consistent cynic.

Well at least he's already back tracking on the whole, "taxing 529s" plan. I hope whomever told him THAT was a good idea was immediately fired.

 DarkLink wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.

I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.

Gotta love the GOP

Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?

Well, the cynic in me says that it doesn't matter the party, politicians are scumbags and thieves all around. But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans, rather than whatever farce Boehner ("Boner") has been trying to pass off the past couple of years.

So... kind of like how instead of proposing policies favorable compromise in the State of the Union address, Obama doubled down on a number of policies that Republicans have described as non-starters? Or how Democratic presidents have started as many wars as Republican presidents? If you're going to be a cynic, at least be a consistent cynic.

Trust me, I absolutely believe there are corrupt and gakky Democratic politicians. That being said, I'm more likely to trust a Democrat than a Republican on making a decision for the betterment of America. Besides, Obama really isn't the first president to double down on policies that the Senate majority refused, he's just the first black president to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
And Boehner let bills die, and kept the government shut down, even though he had a bill that was supported by a majority in the house because it was rejected by a majority in his caucus.

It's a two player game, but that's where Boehmer gets screwed by his own guys.

I would like some examples of being screwed by his own guys, because I've seen him doing screwing himself.

 cincydooley wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:


So... kind of like how instead of proposing policies favorable compromise in the State of the Union address, Obama doubled down on a number of policies that Republicans have described as non-starters? Or how Democratic presidents have started as many wars as Republican presidents? If you're going to be a cynic, at least be a consistent cynic.

Well at least he's already back tracking on the whole, "taxing 529s" plan. I hope whomever told him THAT was a good idea was immediately fired.

Like most resilient tax policies, 529s overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. But they do just enough for the middle class that no one wants them gone. Like the mortgage interest deduction, paying out fat refunds to wealthy homeowners while doing nothing for young and poor renters.

[url]http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64

Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are eccentrically death traps.

Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.

You're missing the point. Some countries have no go areas. The US has no go cities!
(and the entire state of New Mexico)

 Frazzled wrote:

Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are eccentrically death traps.

Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.

You're missing the point. Some countries have no go areas. The US has no go cities!
(and the entire state of New Mexico)

Have you ever been to Gallup, NM? It is my vote for the worst/dirtiest city in the US.