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.
cuda1179 wrote: Heck, I even give Richard Nixon credit for a lot of things. He did a number of bad things, but I think he is a criminally underrated President. Watergate hurts his reputation badly, but he did get us out of Viet Nam, and a number of his policies did work out for the better.
If you set aside Watergate (which, in all fairness, is a big ask) then I think Nixon is probably the greatest modern president in terms of achievement. Of course I say that as someone who skews liberal, but by todays totally screwed up standards, so were Nixon and Reagan.
Ended the war in Vietnam
Ended the draft
Opened up China
Signed Title IX
Started the EPA
Started OSHA
Started SALT with the USSR
Signed the ABM
Did an enormous amount to desegregate schools
Sent aid to Israel which almost certainly avoided a nuclear deployment during the Yom Kippur war
Made an honest attempt at healthcare
HRC reminds me of Nixon somewhat. Actually good at the job but way too obsessed with power and personal accomplishment. It raises concerns over what a perspn like that might do if extreme circumstances arise. This is opposed to someone like Obama who is less skilled but can be counted on to try doing what's best for the people at the end of the day.
cuda1179 wrote: Heck, I even give Richard Nixon credit for a lot of things. He did a number of bad things, but I think he is a criminally underrated President. Watergate hurts his reputation badly, but he did get us out of Viet Nam, and a number of his policies did work out for the better.
If you set aside Watergate (which, in all fairness, is a big ask) then I think Nixon is probably the greatest modern president in terms of achievement. Of course I say that as someone who skews liberal, but by todays totally screwed up standards, so were Nixon and Reagan.
Ended the war in Vietnam
Ended the draft
Opened up China
Signed Title IX
Started the EPA
Started OSHA
Started SALT with the USSR
Signed the ABM
Did an enormous amount to desegregate schools
Sent aid to Israel which almost certainly avoided a nuclear deployment during the Yom Kippur war
Made an honest attempt at healthcare
HRC reminds me of Nixon somewhat. Actually good at the job but way too obsessed with power and personal accomplishment. It raises concerns over what a perspn like that might do if extreme circumstances arise. This is opposed to someone like Obama who is less skilled but can be counted on to try doing what's best for the people at the end of the day.
Not to mention he also opened up diplomatic relations with the PRC. But yes I can see the Nixon and HRC comparison, though she is not quite as paranoid as Nixon imo
cuda1179 wrote: Heck, I even give Richard Nixon credit for a lot of things. He did a number of bad things, but I think he is a criminally underrated President. Watergate hurts his reputation badly, but he did get us out of Viet Nam, and a number of his policies did work out for the better.
If you set aside Watergate (which, in all fairness, is a big ask) then I think Nixon is probably the greatest modern president in terms of achievement. Of course I say that as someone who skews liberal, but by todays totally screwed up standards, so were Nixon and Reagan.
Ended the war in Vietnam
Ended the draft
Opened up China
Signed Title IX
Started the EPA
Started OSHA
Started SALT with the USSR
Signed the ABM
Did an enormous amount to desegregate schools
Sent aid to Israel which almost certainly avoided a nuclear deployment during the Yom Kippur war
Made an honest attempt at healthcare
HRC reminds me of Nixon somewhat. Actually good at the job but way too obsessed with power and personal accomplishment. It raises concerns over what a perspn like that might do if extreme circumstances arise. This is opposed to someone like Obama who is less skilled but can be counted on to try doing what's best for the people at the end of the day.
How was she good? She literally achieved nothing.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The site says that during the month of March, after the panic began, it received 253 emails and 167 phone calls from customers looking for Necco-brand candies. Twenty-nine people offered to pay at least double the going bulk rate, and three reportedly said they’d perform free labor in exchange for priority treatment. One woman wanted 100 pounds of Necco’s glorified Tums, which she planned to vacuum-seal to keep her prepper stash fresh “for years.” (A standard 24-wafer roll weighs 2.02 ounces, so she was requesting about 800 packs.) Another woman said she’d trade her late-model Honda Accord for all of CandyStore.com’s remaining Necco candy.
..... you're a strange bunch of people America.
Wonder what the connection between the people calling, Sovereign Citizens, and doomsday preppers would look like.
While there is a bit of an overlap between these two groups, Preppers as a group (at least in my experience) tend to facepalm when Sovereign Citizens are talked about.
Now, I've only dabbled in the world of prepping, mostly as a "can't hurt, might help" kind of thing. I think it's just pragmatic to have medical supplies, a couple weeks provisions, and self defense items on standby. Also, as I am planning on building a small cabin for weekend getaways, preppers have a lot of practical experience on keeping these kinds of places secured from pillagers that want to take your stuff when you aren't there 10 months of the year.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: [HRC reminds me of Nixon somewhat. Actually good at the job but way too obsessed with power and personal accomplishment. It raises concerns over what a perspn like that might do if extreme circumstances arise. This is opposed to someone like Obama who is less skilled but can be counted on to try doing what's best for the people at the end of the day.
I see parallels, but I think they come from different parts of the spectrum. I always felt that Nixon was basically a nerd (or the old-timey equivalent). He had some great ideas, but most of politics and the media were stacked against him for reasons that were pretty lame. In order to do anything he tried to pull a "Billy Badass" routine to prove he was top dog. In some regards I think he didn't flex his muscle in the right way, while at the same time it went to his head and became an integral part of how he ran things. He was the guy that craved acceptance and threw a fit to get it.
HRC on the other hand seemed to be a person that was scared to give up what she had, and how dare anyone try to take away from what she built-up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/14 18:56:31
cuda1179 wrote: Heck, I even give Richard Nixon credit for a lot of things. He did a number of bad things, but I think he is a criminally underrated President. Watergate hurts his reputation badly, but he did get us out of Viet Nam, and a number of his policies did work out for the better.
If you set aside Watergate (which, in all fairness, is a big ask) then I think Nixon is probably the greatest modern president in terms of achievement. Of course I say that as someone who skews liberal, but by todays totally screwed up standards, so were Nixon and Reagan.
Ended the war in Vietnam
Ended the draft
Opened up China
Signed Title IX
Started the EPA
Started OSHA
Started SALT with the USSR
Signed the ABM
Did an enormous amount to desegregate schools
Sent aid to Israel which almost certainly avoided a nuclear deployment during the Yom Kippur war
Made an honest attempt at healthcare
HRC reminds me of Nixon somewhat. Actually good at the job but way too obsessed with power and personal accomplishment. It raises concerns over what a perspn like that might do if extreme circumstances arise. This is opposed to someone like Obama who is less skilled but can be counted on to try doing what's best for the people at the end of the day.
Not to mention he also opened up diplomatic relations with the PRC.
That was third on my list!
Frazzled wrote: How was she good? She literally achieved nothing.
The site says that during the month of March, after the panic began, it received 253 emails and 167 phone calls from customers looking for Necco-brand candies. Twenty-nine people offered to pay at least double the going bulk rate, and three reportedly said they’d perform free labor in exchange for priority treatment. One woman wanted 100 pounds of Necco’s glorified Tums, which she planned to vacuum-seal to keep her prepper stash fresh “for years.” (A standard 24-wafer roll weighs 2.02 ounces, so she was requesting about 800 packs.) Another woman said she’d trade her late-model Honda Accord for all of CandyStore.com’s remaining Necco candy.
..... you're a strange bunch of people America.
If preppers put this much effort into fixing the government as they do waiting for it to implode, we wouldn't be having these problems...
cuda1179 wrote: Heck, I even give Richard Nixon credit for a lot of things. He did a number of bad things, but I think he is a criminally underrated President. Watergate hurts his reputation badly, but he did get us out of Viet Nam, and a number of his policies did work out for the better.
If you set aside Watergate (which, in all fairness, is a big ask) then I think Nixon is probably the greatest modern president in terms of achievement. Of course I say that as someone who skews liberal, but by todays totally screwed up standards, so were Nixon and Reagan.
Ended the war in Vietnam
Ended the draft
Opened up China
Signed Title IX
Started the EPA
Started OSHA
Started SALT with the USSR
Signed the ABM
Did an enormous amount to desegregate schools
Sent aid to Israel which almost certainly avoided a nuclear deployment during the Yom Kippur war
Made an honest attempt at healthcare
HRC reminds me of Nixon somewhat. Actually good at the job but way too obsessed with power and personal accomplishment. It raises concerns over what a perspn like that might do if extreme circumstances arise. This is opposed to someone like Obama who is less skilled but can be counted on to try doing what's best for the people at the end of the day.
Not to mention he also opened up diplomatic relations with the PRC.
That was third on my list!
Frazzled wrote: How was she good? She literally achieved nothing.
Ouze wrote: Technically right is the best kind of right.
Technically it's: "technically correct, the best kind of correct"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/14 19:55:54
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
cuda1179 wrote:Well, if there was multiple "private" fire stations that were all clamoring to put out fires faster and cheaper than the government ones
They would all be advertising their cheap(er) insurance rates (forgetting to mention additional fees) while you are trying to compare them and find the best option (if you get to make a choice instead of being forced to rely on one option that's bad in regard to most of the issues you care about) and then they'd try to weasel out of doing the job (that saves money, after all) or otherwise try to get away with spending the least amount of money possible because they'd have owners or shareholders to satisfy.
They's be clamouring about the quality of their service in TV ads while trying to get as far away as possible from any real fires. Just look at the US health insurance companies or internet providers for parallels.
There are plenty of areas with private fire departments that are sustained by subscriptions.
Everybody loves not having to pay taxes to support them, and then yell at firefighters and threaten them when they show up to watch the house burn down and refuse to intervene while making sure the fire doesn’t spread to the house of the person that paid their membership fee.
cuda1179 wrote:Well, if there was multiple "private" fire stations that were all clamoring to put out fires faster and cheaper than the government ones
They would all be advertising their cheap(er) insurance rates (forgetting to mention additional fees) while you are trying to compare them and find the best option (if you get to make a choice instead of being forced to rely on one option that's bad in regard to most of the issues you care about) and then they'd try to weasel out of doing the job (that saves money, after all) or otherwise try to get away with spending the least amount of money possible because they'd have owners or shareholders to satisfy.
They's be clamouring about the quality of their service in TV ads while trying to get as far away as possible from any real fires. Just look at the US health insurance companies or internet providers for parallels.
Not to mention the money they spend on advertising isn't spent on fighting fires.
My parents remembers when Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union as member states...
I've got a few thoughts:
1) I think this is really neat from a historical perspective...
2) Probably does make sense in the long term so that the government would be more responsive to the will of the people...
3) Adding 4 more Senators to Congress! o.O (54 would be the count) But the House members will probably remain unchanged...
4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.
However, if we going splitsville... I'd split CA into two states:
Spoiler:
I think this idea was shot down the last few times...
Not the first time a California split has been on the ballot. The democrats will never allow it as it would damage a power bloc formed from San Francisco/LA. They'd risk losing one half or the other, especially LA, where their lead is narrower than in San Fran.
Actually it sounds like this proposal would be two blue states with NorCal being swing. So I think the electoral aspect is a wash for Dems and they'd be more interested in the actual benefits/downsides to the state(s).
I'm against it purely because, honestly, where does it end? Do we split Texas in 5 peices or somethign to make sure everyone gets a congressperson they like? What about NY, or Florida? If we want better representation for states heavily controlled by one party a better solution would be stuff like tossing the EC or making it so that they are awarded proportionally by state.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Trump made literally thousands of lies in his first year of office, has been a blatant hypocrite from day one, and has left Obama in the dust when it comes to either. To believe otherwise is a delusion. The only reason to deflect onto Obama at all is because one cannot defend a pro-Trump stance on the matter. This line to discussion was already done from the onset, and is the type of thing we should just ignore. It's the minority of posters arguing against facts and in bad faith that always sends these threads downhill. A simple response to point out the lie and call out the fallacy (usually whataboutism) is all that's needed.
Amount of lies, yes. However, what does he lie about?
My parents remembers when Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union as member states...
I've got a few thoughts:
1) I think this is really neat from a historical perspective...
2) Probably does make sense in the long term so that the government would be more responsive to the will of the people...
3) Adding 4 more Senators to Congress! o.O (54 would be the count) But the House members will probably remain unchanged...
4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.
However, if we going splitsville... I'd split CA into two states:
Spoiler:
I think this idea was shot down the last few times...
Not the first time a California split has been on the ballot. The democrats will never allow it as it would damage a power bloc formed from San Francisco/LA. They'd risk losing one half or the other, especially LA, where their lead is narrower than in San Fran.
Actually it sounds like this proposal would be two blue states with NorCal being swing. So I think the electoral aspect is a wash for Dems and they'd be more interested in the actual benefits/downsides to the state(s).
I'm against it purely because, honestly, where does it end? Do we split Texas in 5 peices or somethign to make sure everyone gets a congressperson they like? What about NY, or Florida? If we want better representation for states heavily controlled by one party a better solution would be stuff like tossing the EC or making it so that they are awarded proportionally by state.
I was explaining why the Democrats wouldn't have much of a motive for/against the split because of the representative angle. The split itself isn't about party representation or number of seats in the senate but rather that California covers a huge area with a huge number of people that would be better managed as separate states due to cultural & geographical differences.
Has the USA become the first nation in military history to conduct a military campaign through twitter tweets?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
My parents remembers when Alaska and Hawaii were added to the union as member states...
I've got a few thoughts:
1) I think this is really neat from a historical perspective...
2) Probably does make sense in the long term so that the government would be more responsive to the will of the people...
3) Adding 4 more Senators to Congress! o.O (54 would be the count) But the House members will probably remain unchanged...
4) Now it's time to be cynical... I think over time, this'll increase the Democrat's power base as I don't think the GOP will be able to hold onto the new North and South CA states.
5) We really need to admit Puerto Rico & USVI as a state.
However, if we going splitsville... I'd split CA into two states:
Spoiler:
I think this idea was shot down the last few times...
Not the first time a California split has been on the ballot. The democrats will never allow it as it would damage a power bloc formed from San Francisco/LA. They'd risk losing one half or the other, especially LA, where their lead is narrower than in San Fran.
Actually it sounds like this proposal would be two blue states with NorCal being swing. So I think the electoral aspect is a wash for Dems and they'd be more interested in the actual benefits/downsides to the state(s).
I'm against it purely because, honestly, where does it end? Do we split Texas in 5 peices or somethign to make sure everyone gets a congressperson they like? What about NY, or Florida? If we want better representation for states heavily controlled by one party a better solution would be stuff like tossing the EC or making it so that they are awarded proportionally by state.
Unless Congress revisits apportionmaent and changes the existing law that caps the House at 435 it won’t matter if we have 50 states or 53 or 70 etc. There is no reason to limit the House to 435 mebers it’s just the number we had in the 1910s when Congress passes the arbitrary cap law to protect incumbents. The limit is why a state like California with 40 million people has 53 representatives in the House and a state like Montana with 1 million people has 1 representative in the House. California has fewer people per Congressional representative than Montana but not states have districts that are stupidly overpopulated because of the apportionment law from over a century ago. The number of people in each congressional district should be within the same range in every state to ensure that all citizens have equal representation. More populous states will have more representatives than less populous states and since Electoral votes are based on Congressional representation more populous states will have more EC votes than less populous ones just like it is now. The system stays in place but the people have better representation and can make themselves heard better in DC. This would also help combat gerrymandering since districts would have to maintain a population within the required range whenever they get redrawn.
Unless Congress revisits apportionmaent and changes the existing law that caps the House at 435 it won’t matter if we have 50 states or 53 or 70 etc. There is no reason to limit the House to 435 mebers it’s just the number we had in the 1910s when Congress passes the arbitrary cap law to protect incumbents. The limit is why a state like California with 40 million people has 53 representatives in the House and a state like Montana with 1 million people has 1 representative in the House. California has fewer people per Congressional representative than Montana but not states have districts that are stupidly overpopulated because of the apportionment law from over a century ago. The number of people in each congressional district should be within the same range in every state to ensure that all citizens have equal representation. More populous states will have more representatives than less populous states and since Electoral votes are based on Congressional representation more populous states will have more EC votes than less populous ones just like it is now. The system stays in place but the people have better representation and can make themselves heard better in DC. This would also help combat gerrymandering since districts would have to maintain a population within the required range whenever they get redrawn.
I'd definitely support this especially as with new technology there is no reason for all reps to be in DC all the time. Allowing for electronic voting (even if it is a guy in a video chat going yay/nay) would mean that an increase in reps wouldn't especially overburden the houses of congress.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I'd support it out of fairness and principle. It's both unfair and illegal to effectively discriminate against voters due to their place of residence. Californian votes are worth less than those from other states. I understand things will never be perfect so there needs to be wiggle room, but while I forget the exact statistical difference I remember it's pretty notable.
d-usa wrote:There are plenty of areas with private fire departments that are sustained by subscriptions.
Everybody loves not having to pay taxes to support them, and then yell at firefighters and threaten them when they show up to watch the house burn down and refuse to intervene while making sure the fire doesn’t spread to the house of the person that paid their membership fee.
The Firefighters' Guild has been formed and dissolved repeatedly throughout the history of Ankh-Morpork. Usually formed in response to fires which cause significant damage to large parts of the city, the guild is usually dissolved in response to... er, fires which cause significant damage to large parts of the city. The Guild suffers from the undying capitalist spirit of Ankh-Morpork, as those men who are paid per-fire extinguished eventually begin to guarantee a regular supply of fires to be put out (see also Inn-Sewer-Ants). This has led to the frequent destruction of large portions of the city and ultimately to the Guild's being banned.
Yes, private fire departments are a thing, and if you refuse to pay they will refuse to put out your house fire, but will show up to protect your paying neighbor.
They usually exist in unincorporated areas outside of city districts.
Depending on the state laws, there are a couple of different options for fire protection in those areas. The fire department I used to volunteer for was established after a house burned to the ground without anyone responding because it was outside of any city limits. The people voted to form a Fire Protection District, and everyone inside the district pays a property tax that funds the fire department.
The district next to us was a subscription based fire service. You pay your yearly membership, and you get protection. It functions like insurance, so many people had a ‘it won’t happen to me” mindset and never paid. It didn’t help that the fire department didn’t have the willpower to stand firm and let non-paying homes burn down. Volunteer firefighter want to help, which is understandable, but it doesn’t really motivate people to pay the membership fee. They tried billing for their service, but good look getting someone with a burned up house to pay the bill (and nobody was going to take anyone to court). The department almost shut down, but a new chief and board took over and we helped them form a FPD like ours.
But there are plenty department who are still fully subscription based. And they stand firm and will not lift a finger to put a drop of water on a house that hasn’t paid. People will try to hand them the membership fee in cash outside their burning house, but they will decline to let them pay at the time. It seems heartless, but the reality is that if you respond to non-paying homes or let them pay at the time of a fire, nobody has any incentive to pay their membership. And without that funding, nobody will have a fire department to protect them. So you have to be firm and refuse to save that house, so that you can exist long enough to save other homes in the future.
Did we talk about that particularly disgusting comment the governor of Kentucky said? I don't remember, but he "apologized" for it today
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin apologized Sunday for saying that children were sexually abused because they were left home alone while teachers rallied to ask lawmakers to override his vetoes.
The Republican issued his apology in a nearly four-minute video posted online, saying "it is not my intent to hurt anybody in this process, but to help us all move forward together."
On Friday, Bevin's explosive comments were part of his statement criticizing teachers for leaving work to protest at the Capitol. More than 30 school districts closed Friday. Bevin's comments came shortly after Republican lawmakers voted to override his vetoes of an operating budget that included increased spending for public education with the help of an accompanying tax increase.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd definitely support this especially as with new technology there is no reason for all reps to be in DC all the time. Allowing for electronic voting (even if it is a guy in a video chat going yay/nay) would mean that an increase in reps wouldn't especially overburden the houses of congress.
And make it much easier for Russia to highjack the US congress directly rather than rigging elections.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'd definitely support this especially as with new technology there is no reason for all reps to be in DC all the time. Allowing for electronic voting (even if it is a guy in a video chat going yay/nay) would mean that an increase in reps wouldn't especially overburden the houses of congress.
And make it much easier for Russia to highjack the US congress directly rather than rigging elections.
That's possibly the stupidest thing I've heard today, and it's been a long day. When there will be like maybe 600 votes you have to verify, I think we can set up a system that can work. And as I said, literally just have them vote via video chat.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 02:15:17
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Ustrello wrote: Did we talk about that particularly disgusting comment the governor of Kentucky said? I don't remember, but he "apologized" for it today
Spoiler:
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin apologized Sunday for saying that children were sexually abused because they were left home alone while teachers rallied to ask lawmakers to override his vetoes.
The Republican issued his apology in a nearly four-minute video posted online, saying "it is not my intent to hurt anybody in this process, but to help us all move forward together."
On Friday, Bevin's explosive comments were part of his statement criticizing teachers for leaving work to protest at the Capitol. More than 30 school districts closed Friday. Bevin's comments came shortly after Republican lawmakers voted to override his vetoes of an operating budget that included increased spending for public education with the help of an accompanying tax increase.
I saw that stuff earlier. I thought about mentioning it here, but I decided I really didn't want to see someone try to defend it here. Because you know someone would.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
They usually exist in unincorporated areas outside of city districts.
Depending on the state laws, there are a couple of different options for fire protection in those areas. The fire department I used to volunteer for was established after a house burned to the ground without anyone responding because it was outside of any city limits. The people voted to form a Fire Protection District, and everyone inside the district pays a property tax that funds the fire department.
The district next to us was a subscription based fire service. You pay your yearly membership, and you get protection. It functions like insurance, so many people had a ‘it won’t happen to me” mindset and never paid. It didn’t help that the fire department didn’t have the willpower to stand firm and let non-paying homes burn down. Volunteer firefighter want to help, which is understandable, but it doesn’t really motivate people to pay the membership fee. They tried billing for their service, but good look getting someone with a burned up house to pay the bill (and nobody was going to take anyone to court). The department almost shut down, but a new chief and board took over and we helped them form a FPD like ours.
But there are plenty department who are still fully subscription based. And they stand firm and will not lift a finger to put a drop of water on a house that hasn’t paid. People will try to hand them the membership fee in cash outside their burning house, but they will decline to let them pay at the time. It seems heartless, but the reality is that if you respond to non-paying homes or let them pay at the time of a fire, nobody has any incentive to pay their membership. And without that funding, nobody will have a fire department to protect them. So you have to be firm and refuse to save that house, so that you can exist long enough to save other homes in the future.
Question since you know more than I assume the vast majority of us about it, but how does that work for renters or apartments? I assume it would be on the owners of the properties to pay for the subscription. But what if they do not and a person loses everything? Would that effect renters insurance if the renter had that? Would insurance be able to decline to pay if they could prove it was the landlords fault? Would the renter be able to sue/could a property owner get away with that if it was stated in the lease they did not provide it? What about apartment buildings where people own the individual apartments like NYC? (Or at least I think that is how it works there)
I actually have a lot more questions but I think I should limit it right now. Private fire services just seem like a quagmire of issues to me.
That's the chair of the Republican National Committee. She was one of a few dozen Republicans who have been working the media in the last few days, to attack James Comey in anticipation of his book. Trump himself made about a dozen attacks over the space of an hour or so one morning, which I can only assume was a long and anger filled morning constitutional. I picked one of the funnier instances, but the rest are little different. All these attacks just happen to perfectly fit the Republican media strategy to attack Comey that was leaked a few days ago. The plan is to attack Comey on his credibility, his conduct and his contradictions, the 'three C's', because that's how third string media consultants always try to brand stuff. They even started a website just to attack Comey. Not to dispute the content of the book, which they couldn't do even if there was anything to dispute, because they haven't read the book. Instead its just straight up villification.
And the thing is, there's actually a real debate to be had about James Comey's conduct in 2016. He continued to make public the Clinton investigation, including one last, election turning update a week before election day, while keeping absolute secrecy about the investigation in to Trump. The reasons he's touched on, particularly his assessment that he thought it was best for the FBI to tilt announcements against Clinton because he expected her to win and wanted to remove any doubt over Clinton's win and the FBI's interference... is simultaneously an understandable political judgement, and also really troubling because justice dept officials should never be having to make political judgements.
But we aren't having that debate, because one side of politics has instead decided on a scorched earth, all lies all the time strategy because their only thought it minimising the harm to the president. And the Comey book is far from the only instance. What's happening there is basically standard operating procedure for the Republicans and their greater network of loyalist media propagandists. Each person, Democrat and Republican, politician or official, who've challenged Trump has been similarly attacked. Nor is this really that different to how Republicans have engaged in politics for some time now. Everyone remembers Marco Rubio being mocked for his often repeated caned "Obama doesn't know what he's doing, he knows exactly what he's doing", but note it led to Rubio being attacked only because the line made him seem non-genuine. Actually read the line - it's an absurd claim - that Obama established policies that Republicans don't like, not because they have different ideas on what policies work, but because Obama actually intends his policies to work as negatively as Republicans believe they will. Republican rhetoric is at a point where a major presidential candidate could claim the president was actively intending to hurt Americans and all people notice is that his attack seemed pre-rehearsed.
Thing is, everybody spins, and the very act of having a viewpoint means there will be bias. But this is very different. What we are looking at right now is a Republican party which doesn't just have a point of view, or look to spin events in their most favourable light, we are looking at people who as a matter of routine will claim anything if it suits their immediate political ends. And as the interview excerpt above shows, they now do this so readily they don't even wait to see what reality might be before they've set to work inventing their imaginary version of events.
What this means is public debate is effectively dead. You can't debate with fiction writers. All you can do is work to reveal every one of their fictions, detail each lie and hope that a large enough majority of people become so disgusted with a country run by serial liars that it boosts Democratic vote counts enough to hammer Republicans so badly they have no choice but to start a long overdue reform of the party. But in terms of actual debate between the two sides - it isn't possible now and it probably won't be possible for some time.
Ouze wrote: If you set aside Watergate (which, in all fairness, is a big ask) then I think Nixon is probably the greatest modern president in terms of achievement.
I think you make a decent point once we accept the idea of setting aside Watergate, however setting aside Watergate is a bit like saying apart from that one thing, the 1864 Ford Theatre production of Our American Cousin went without incident.
Some things can't ever be excluded. They are essential to every other part. Remember Watergate didn't just end up revealing a break-in and subsequent cover up, it revealed an Administration in which breaches of the law and of ethical standards was the norm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote: A nuclear power directly attacking another nuclear power is the worst scenario to use to argue against not wanting a nuclear power to directly attack another nuclear power.
Why would Russia invade Alaska, anyway? That's particularly farfetched. I mean, for feth's sake, at least come up with something that isn't so obviously within inches of nuclear war as Russia invading the United States. Not even proxy war, two ships blowing eachother up in the middle of the ocean somewhere or a couple of units in a third country murdering each other. The only thing that is higher on the ladder of nuclear war than Russia invading the US is actual nuclear war.
The realism of the scenario is irrelevant. The example was deliberately fantastical to make it easy for you to identify the principal in play. It failed, because you're actively trying to pretend that principal doesn't exist.
I'll explain it one more time. A country developing nuclear weapons doesn't mean every other country then just rolls over for them. Sure, we have to respect the power of a nuclear arsenal, and never ever back a nuclear power in to a point of existential crisis where they might actually consider destroying the planet, but it doesn't mean we give nuclear powers free reign to do as they please. If we allow them to ignore national borders and international law then even before we consider the humanitarian costs we are looking at a less stable, more militant world where nuclear confrontation becomes more likely, not less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: I'm seeing some rumblings in the news that Trump, due to our trade war with China that's not a trade war depending on who you ask, is reconsidering the TPP. What's up with that?
Someone sat down and explained what the TPP is. I mean, probably not what it actually is, I somehow doubt Donald sat there quietly while someone explained TPP doesn't actually remove many trade barriers (because there aren't actually many trade barriers left to remove), but instead rebuilds trade rules in a way that's much harder for China to manipulate. That the IP theft and awful worker safety China uses for competitive advantage will be much harder when their Asian markets are united under TPP rules.
Instead the probably just got a map out and showed Donald how all the countries in TPP surround China, and if the US would return to leading TPP it'd be the actual smart way of fighting China on trade.
Or maybe the agricultural lobby turned up with a pile of cash, because they're now quite bothered countries like Australia have just cracked the last great protected food market in the world, Japan, and so we now have a massive competitive advantage over US producers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ash87 wrote: See I have to object to this. What we're seeing is a cyclical political cycle of the party in power shouldering the blame for everything in the country, and thus getting hammered in the midterm following the election of the president. It's amplified, because Republicans hold just about everything politically. Thing is, this is the same situation we were in in 2010, back when the republicans seized the house from the democrats following Obama's election.
Your point is entirely right, and most people expect very strong Democrat results in November which could change the political power to some extent.
But that doesn't change the political power right now, which Democrats are quite distressed about.
Further, the Republican Party lacking Cultural power thing is rather unfair? There is for sure a Republican culture as they have diversified their base to be disenfranchised blue collar workers in blue belt areas, in addition to the evangelical and pro-business wings of their party. There is a "Culture" there for them. It's a mix of populism, nationalism, and religiosity that appeals greatly to many people. Agree with it or not, it is undeniably a thing. The party lacks support from younger generations, but it's frankly questionable as to whether or not it's needed (Yet, being a qualifier here).
There is a Republican culture. But it is reactionary culture, built around opposition to what they perceive as Liberal bias elsewhere. Any time that culture has looked to compete outside of niche bubbles its been hammered. Look at their attempts to make conservative comedy talk shows work - dismal. But there's quite a few markedly Democrat (or at least anti-Republican) talk shows doing nightly stuff and doing just fine as mainstream entertainment. Colbert. Seth Meyers. John Oliver. Samantha Bee. The Daily Show (I guess, does anyone watch that anymore?). Jimmy Kimmel sort of - he's normally non-political, but his most significant moments have come when he's talked on politics.
Thing to consider is you combine the point above about political being cyclical, then consider how much culture is leaving Republicans behind. Republicans need to consider what happens when they get bounced from political power, but are still so divorced from mainstream culture. How many times can angry reactionary politics keep dragging them back in to the Whitehouse?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @sebster. No, I don't glamorize the past or yearn for the days of the gunboat and General Gordon defending Khartoum.
Warfare is the most serious thing any nation can engage in. As Sun Tzu said, it is a matter of safety or ruin for a nation.
Is it too much to ask that Western leaders engage in some analysis and rational thinking before they start blasting off missiles?
After the war, the original plan for Germany was pull apart all its heavy industry, ship it off to other European countries so Germany would never have an industrial base to build another war machine. Germany would instead be remade in the image of Belgium or the Netherlands, with good living standards built around agriculture and services. This plan was started, factories started being pulled down, and the biggest resistance came from people who argued the plan was too kind to the Germans, they wouldn't be made to suffer enough. But at the exact time that was happening the Marshall Plan was being rolled out, pouring money into many countries including Germany. They were rebuilding and dismantling Germany at the same time.
It was only when the horrors of the war were a few years gone and Russia was now firmly established as the new rival that by the early 50s they finally stopped dismantlying German factories, and instead switched entirely to having Marshall funds rebuilt German industry.
A generation later and the Marshall Plan is rightly hailed as a wondrous achievement. But at the time they were just making it up as they went along.
As bad as imperialists were in the 19th century Sebster, they at least had some semblance of what they were doing and what they wanted...
Everybody is always making it up as they go along. I mean, this recent round of missiles does seem particularly spur of the moment, and going to war without a Secretary of State is an historic low, but in general things right now are about as coherent as they normally are - not very.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlaxicanX wrote: Well obviously it doesn't blow your mind too much because you just said that I'm right, lol. Libya was a tragedy and yet the conflict wasn't nearly as complicated as Syria, and we (the US) had better leadership with more restraint at the time. By every factor imaginable we had more tools for success in Libya then Syria and yet it still ended up being a shitshow. Anyone who thinks we should do it again with this administration leading the charge is out of touch with reality. I would love to see anyone who disagrees lay out what they think would be a viable military solution to "the Assad problem", a solution meaning something that isn't going to leave Syria as an even bigger hell hole then it already is.
You keep talking about Syria like it only starts being an issue once the US decides to engage. It's already an absolute disaster whether the US goes in or not. This isn't an argument to intervene, it's just a recognition that 'what if it becomes another Libya?' is a very weird question, because its already 40 times worse than Libya.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/04/16 06:14:53
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I love how we blames it on medicare/caid and SS. Because feth the poor amirght guys! But absolutely nothing to do with the massive taxcut you pushed through that mostly beinifts the rich.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
