Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

I don't have a problem with people owning or using handguns, rifles, automatics, anti-vehicular weapons or even crossbows and dull rocks as long as they do so responsibly.

This comment is like a cool oasis in a desert to me.

Me too. I'd just like to make sure that people are responsible. That is, not insane, not with a history of violent crime, and capable of proving they have a gun safe and are at least moderately responsible enough to keep a good gun safe, and keep the weapons in question in good repair. In other words, that they are responsible.

A major problem is that what exact use does any normal person have for a bazooka other than blowing up innocent people?

[Taricus]

I don't have a problem with people owning or using handguns, rifles, automatics, anti-vehicular weapons or even crossbows and dull rocks as long as they do so responsibly.

This comment is like a cool oasis in a desert to me.

Me too. I'd just like to make sure that people are responsible. That is, not insane, not with a history of violent crime, and capable of proving they have a gun safe and are at least moderately responsible enough to keep a good gun safe, and keep the weapons in question in good repair. In other words, that they are responsible.

A major problem is that what exact use does any normal person have for a bazooka other than blowing up innocent people?

A collection maybe.

[Lord Shonus]

In case someone steals a tank or builds a killdozer?

[RedWarrior0]

Also, on an unrelated but somewhat related note, Snyder wants to remove the exempt status of pensions.

[EmperorNuthulu]

I don't have a problem with people owning or using handguns, rifles, automatics, anti-vehicular weapons or even crossbows and dull rocks as long as they do so responsibly.

This comment is like a cool oasis in a desert to me.

Me too. I'd just like to make sure that people are responsible. That is, not insane, not with a history of violent crime, and capable of proving they have a gun safe and are at least moderately responsible enough to keep a good gun safe, and keep the weapons in question in good repair. In other words, that they are responsible.

A major problem is that what exact use does any normal person have for a bazooka other than blowing up innocent people?

 What can't you do with a bazooka? Can't find your TV remote? Use a bazooka. Need to blend something fast? Bazooka. Giant mechanical spider with one weak point piloted by a mad scientist threatening to conquer the world? Bazooka.


All problems can be solved by a bazooka, the problems they create afterwards however....

[Phmcw]

I don't have a problem with people owning or using handguns, rifles, automatics, anti-vehicular weapons or even crossbows and dull rocks as long as they do so responsibly.

This comment is like a cool oasis in a desert to me.

Me too. I'd just like to make sure that people are responsible. That is, not insane, not with a history of violent crime, and capable of proving they have a gun safe and are at least moderately responsible enough to keep a good gun safe, and keep the weapons in question in good repair. In other words, that they are responsible.

A major problem is that what exact use does any normal person have for a bazooka other than blowing up innocent people?

By your definition, you can own a Beretta in France.

[blackmagechill]

In a world where Conservative Governer Rick Snhider urges the General Assembly to rubber stamp his conservative agenda.... The BAY12 crimesquad is born!

[Vector]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Prohibition of the use of funds for public radio.

[Luke_Prowler]

So... That means radio can no longer be supported by government?

You know what, all you monkeys running the place? Here's an idea: cut your paychecks by half and military spending by 3/4. There. Debt solved.

[Aqizzar]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Prohibition of the use of funds for public radio.

Hmm.  Nuclear earthquake in Japan, "housing crisis" on the verge of striking back, gasoline prices shooting through the roof, Libya in fullscale war which America committed itself to without Congress' involvement, funding due to run out again any day now, and John Boehner and Mitch McConnell can't go five minutes without calling the President derelict for going to South America and liking basketball... And the best thing Boehner can think of for the House to do (between bills denouncing abortion anyway) is strip public funding of radio, because that plucky young kid whose name I can never remember and face I want to slap the smug off of made another hacked-up "exposé" proving NPR is anti-American or something.  The adults are back in power, indeed.

I would say this thread isn't really about the Federal Congress' idiocy, but if you think you're annoyed now, I've got an upcoming House bill that'll knock your socks off, with wide-ranging implications for state laws.  It probably has no chance of passing the Senate, but it's worth mentioning.  I'll get back to posting about it when I get my sources straight, and my computer stops being a piece of shit.

[Vector]

Damn it, I was thinking of this as a "How did they try to screw up the US government today" thread.

My error.

But I look forward to your horrible article, too.

[Solifuge]

We might benefit from a "How did Government screw up today" thread, if just to spread awareness of current political goings-on.

I keep being disgusted by things I see here and there in government, but I'm always at a loss for what practical thing I can do to make a direct difference. I research the candidates I vote for, I sign petitions, and I have written a few letters to my representatives... yet it seems there is no way I can influence policy as a concerned individual. If misguided governance is so apparent to so many, why is it that we allow it to persist? How do people sit comfortably in government, knowing that they are ignoring real and relevant problems, in favor of pointless legislation about marriage and abortion? Are these issues really so great that you have to slip them into every bill you deliberate over? Don't even get me started about a bill to ban funding of NPR. If it's a budgetary concern, their own inflated paychecks should be their first concern, far before crippling public awareness by fiscally destroying one of the few good sources of news out there.

Seriously though... why can't we all, as a people beholden to this system, not take a few steps back and make a critical reevaluation of what is going wrong, and how to fix it? It's infuriating to be so powerless over one's own life.

[Aqizzar]

Damn it, I was thinking of this as a "How did they try to screw up the US government today" thread.

Don't worry about it, I don't have any particular problem with people piping up about crazy Federal legislature in the works, I'm just trying to maintain my own helm here.  I would prefer it be stuff that tramples on local or state "rights" and territory, but NPR is kinda a local and state thing, since NPR is hardly the only radio station in the country that survives solely due to public funding.  A great many rural stations could go off the air as well.


Alright, so, here's the Federal thing I wanted to throw in.  I don't really know how much implication it would have for localities, save that it totally bypasses whatever laws particular states may have regarding collective bargaining rights in the workplace.  But that's a pretty universally hot topic right now.  And the Republican controlled federal House has cast its lot in with the numerous state governments trying to penalize unionized or collectivized labor, in a way that sounds like more bad fiction.

Representative Jim Jordan (Ohio, and more on them later) introduced H.R. 1135, seconded by Tim Scott (South Carolina), Scott Garrett (New Jersey), Dan Burton (Indiana), and my one and only Louie "Terror Baby" Gohmert (Texas).  Only "Think Progress" and MSNBC have looked much at this bill yet, and I for one don't consider them the straightest sources.  But luckily, you can read the bill yourself.  In large measure, H.R. 1135 concerns itself with tightening up administrative oversight and means-testing within the federal "Food Stamp" program, making sure that people receiving federal food assistance actually meet the requirements.  One can make an argument over whether the middle of an historic economic downturn is really the best time to balance the budget by making sure pocket change doesn't leak out of food assistance, but I'm not one to complain; it's run of the mill "waste/fraud/abuse" good-government legislation...

Except for a couple segments entered from Page 15 Line 9 to Page 16 Line 12.  To wit-

‘‘(2) STRIKE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT. - For the purpose of subparagraph (A)(iv), an employee of the Federal Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, who is dismissed for participating in a strike against the Federal Government, the State, or the political subdivision of the State shall be considered to have voluntarily quit without good cause.

‘‘(3) STRIKING WORKERS INELIGIBLE. - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no member of a family unit shall participate in the food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142(2)), because of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) as defined in section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(9)): Provided, That a family unit shall not lose its eligibility to participate in the food stamp program as a result of one of its members going on strike if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household: Provided further, That such ineligibility shall not apply to any family unit that does not contain a member on strike, if any of its members refuses to accept employment at a plant or site because of a strike or lockout.’’.

Yep, that's two additional eligibility requirements added into getting federal food assistance.  First, a shoutout to homeboy Scott Walker, by stating that any employee of any Federal, State, or Local government who is fired for striking, will be legally considered to have left of their own accord, and therefore be flat out ineligible.  Second and bigger, if you go on strike against any employer, public or private (and God knows how the government would figure that out), you'll be flat out ineligible, no matter your prior or existing economic condition.  Save for a little mealymouthed language that you'll still be eligible if you became dirt poor concurrent to the strike, but your lost wages due to striking will not be taken into account.

So yeah, that's Ohio's Jim Jordan, and his message today in legislation: On strike, and can't afford to eat?  Go cry to somebody who cares.  And fuck those guys in Wisconsin.

[Lord Shonus]

One can make an argument over whether the middle of an historic economic downturn is really the best time to balance the budget by making sure pocket change doesn't leak out of food assistance, but I'm not one to complain; it's run of the mill "waste/fraud/abuse" good-government legislation...

It's far more than pocket change. You would not believe how easy it is for people to cheat the program, especially when the people who need it often have to cheat to get benefits (ironically because they keep tightening it up in an attempt to reduce fraud). That said, the anti-union bit is worrisome. It almost seems like the Republicans are trying to force Obama to tacitly endorse their agenda by holding the lower and middle classes hostage, but would Congress do that? Again, I mean

[GlyphGryph]

Its pocket change as far as the government is concerned was his point, I think. Worse, its pocket change that arguably ends up usually going to the people it should be going to anyways, as you admit yourself. Like if you made a hundred thousand a year and had your morning coffee cashier skimming 20 cents off the top.