Sending up the @stienman signal again.
Does anyone else miss when the board would autocorrect/autoconfirm a @name_reference? I know I do.
--Patrick
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Does anyone else miss when the board would autocorrect/autoconfirm a @name_reference? I know I do.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
That's ok, full disclosure, I went to bed immediately after posting thatSorry, I had to go to bed and now I'm going to work. Some of us sleep and actually have to work when they go to work
[DOUBLEPOST=1457457961,1457457404][/DOUBLEPOST]
Actually, it's a little from column A, a little from column B. George Washington was general of the revolutionary army during the rebellion, and his biggest problem, as he often lamented in his correspondence, was that he had actually very few troops under his command with any sort of military training or adequate equipment. A huge chunk of his army was made up of farmers with whatever long-arm they had over the mantle/propped in the corner, and they were often in various degrees of disrepair and the farmers were not practiced in their efficient and accurate use - especially under duress. George not only wanted the United States to start manufacturing its own arms and selling them to civilians to keep them equipped up to military standard, but he also wanted civilians to train and drill with their weapons, against the chance that they once again had to become minutemen in a fight against a professional military - remember, even though the revolution was won, the specter of invasion by a colonial european power was still hanging over the new nation for many years - and heck, we all know what happened to DC in the war of 1812.
For my part, I agree with Washington - I wish there was a firearm safety/training class as part of the grade 12 curriculum in highschools nationwide. There'd be a lot less gun accidents and general fear of firearms if everybody were educated and trained in how to be safe - and effective - with firearms.
They actually do this sort of thing in countries that have mandatory military service like Israel, Norway, and Finland.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, you've heard me say before that I liked the Heinleinian idea of requiring 2 years of military service to gain political enfranchisement (voting/running for office).
It would be FASCINATING to see that as top billing on the NRA (or whatever) advocacy website. The reaction to such I mean. But it's probably a good way to get people talking.
GasBandit
Staff member
They were never supposed to. The founding charter of the NRA was to improve civilian marksmanship in response to the abysmal accuracy of conscripts in the civil war.
Yeah, it wasn't until the 1970's that the defense of the second amendment became part of the official protocol.
Necronic
Staff member
One fairly prominent example I can think of is that the NRA accepted money from oil companies and then lobbied for federally protected land to be opened to oil drilling.
Like how the hell can those people say they speak for hunters?[DOUBLEPOST=1457462253,1457462074][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh wow. Just had a fun read. So apparently their largest O&G contributer is none other than Clayton Williams. For those of you not from Texas, he's the guy that ran for governor against Anne Richards and then proceeded to compare an oncoming thunderstorm to rape:
"Just lie back and enjoy it"
And he said that in front of reporters.
Like how the hell can those people say they speak for hunters?[DOUBLEPOST=1457462253,1457462074][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh wow. Just had a fun read. So apparently their largest O&G contributer is none other than Clayton Williams. For those of you not from Texas, he's the guy that ran for governor against Anne Richards and then proceeded to compare an oncoming thunderstorm to rape:
"Just lie back and enjoy it"
And he said that in front of reporters.
Heck, some countries without it, like China, still do it.
Welcome to your first two weeks as a Freshman in college, which includes live ammunition firing practice.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm of the opinion that volunteers are better than conscripts, when it comes to the effectiveness of a military force. I'd not want to discard the advantages of an all-volunteer force entirely, and it seems to me that the enfranchisement system is a good middle ground, with the added bonus of winnowing down the political class and electorate down to only those who have shown they're literally willing to put their life on the line for the country.
Eh, the guns are empty. Ammunition is given when the section is prepared to fire. I took this picture right after everyone just got to the field.
So yesterday when doing some "research" (i.e. Wikipedia) on the Bill of Rights I learned that there was actually one other article that was approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification designed around guidelines for scaling up the size of the House of Representatives as the population grows. Representative per capita would increase as the house grew. Apparently this article was 1 state away from being added to the constitution, but as the states were growing the number needed kept changing and it was forgotten about. Legally it's still awaiting ratification, needing 27 more states to approve it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment
Here's the text for those curious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment
Here's the text for those curious.
I would love to see this or something like it actually make its way into the Constitution. While it would balloon the house to over 6 thousand members it would ensure better representation on domestic matters, and certainly make buying Congress much more expensive.
If you think stuff doesn't get done NOW though...
Iran: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/iran-fires-2-missiles-marked-with-israel-must-be-wiped-out-1.2809703
And remember, this isn't Israeli propaganda about having anti-Israel messages on the missiles. This is state media. SUCH a great deal letting those people pursue nuclear technology. I'm sure that'll turn out just GREAT.
And remember, this isn't Israeli propaganda about having anti-Israel messages on the missiles. This is state media. SUCH a great deal letting those people pursue nuclear technology. I'm sure that'll turn out just GREAT.
You say that like it's a bad thing?
It would put more pressure on the states to actually govern themselves, which is kind of how the entire thing was designed to begin with. After all what the hell do I in North Carolina know about the needs and issues of people living in San Fransisco, CA and vice-versa?
Unsurprisingly, the military isn't onboard with the reformists. *sigh*
More proof that WV lawmakers are just fucking stupid. These assholes got what they deserved.
Never mind that shit, here comes Mongo!
As long as Raw Milk is purchased directly from a dairy, I don't have any problem with it. But it is far to dangerous to put that shit in a supply chain that can take days or weeks to get to your table.
A balance should be struck. Here in michigan if you want raw milk you have to buy shares of a cow on a farm, and then they can legally sell raw milk to you. A co-op arrangment, but far from ideal for a variety of reasons.
Some people are trying to make it more strict so you can't even do that - if you don't own a cow and do the milking yourself you cannot buy or sell raw milk. It becomes a part of the black market for those who prefer it because ordinances prevent some 60% of the population from owning farm animals due to zoning laws.
Others are trying to open it up a little more. If a shop can sell alcohol, cigarettes, and other items that are health hazards, then why should the process to get raw milk be so onerous?
So why the concern and worry? Because children are more susceptible to E Coli than adults. Children under five, like most adults, simply get sick with what many would call food poisoning, buta small fraction of children get HUS from it, which leads to kidney failure and a lifetime of dialysis or immunosuppressants if they can score a replacement kidney. Of course the elderly and immunosuppressed are also at higher risk, but most laws like this are aimed at children who are in the care of others.
Since milk has long been pushed/advertised as food for growing children, and they drink a lot of milk each year, this results in a not small amount of cases of kidney failure in toddlers and infants.
In the case of alcohol, cigarettes, and other harmful but legal substances it's illegal to provide them to children. In other cases (coffee, for instance) there's a strong cultural pressure to avoid giving them to children in quantities where it would hurt them.
But milk is the opposite - there's a strong cultural push to give children milk as a primary component of their dietary needs for growth and development.
So when one examines legislation to reduce milk regulation and safety standards, one has to take into account the effects, and whether parents can be trusted to weigh the risks and accept the responsibility of their choices.
Similar to parents who leave their children in cars unattended, or who refuse medical intervention when their children become seriously ill, you should expect to see lawsuits and criminal abuse cases filed against parents whose children suffer from these issues because they chose raw milk and either trusted their supplier too much, or didn't properly handle the milk once they received it.
That said, there's a lot of E Coli going around in other foods, and when it's discovered the foods are quickly withdrawn, the cause dealt with, and the people treated properly to avoid the extreme effects of these illnesses, so we already have regulation and processes to cover this sort of situation without mandated pasteurization.
Some people are trying to make it more strict so you can't even do that - if you don't own a cow and do the milking yourself you cannot buy or sell raw milk. It becomes a part of the black market for those who prefer it because ordinances prevent some 60% of the population from owning farm animals due to zoning laws.
Others are trying to open it up a little more. If a shop can sell alcohol, cigarettes, and other items that are health hazards, then why should the process to get raw milk be so onerous?
So why the concern and worry? Because children are more susceptible to E Coli than adults. Children under five, like most adults, simply get sick with what many would call food poisoning, buta small fraction of children get HUS from it, which leads to kidney failure and a lifetime of dialysis or immunosuppressants if they can score a replacement kidney. Of course the elderly and immunosuppressed are also at higher risk, but most laws like this are aimed at children who are in the care of others.
Since milk has long been pushed/advertised as food for growing children, and they drink a lot of milk each year, this results in a not small amount of cases of kidney failure in toddlers and infants.
In the case of alcohol, cigarettes, and other harmful but legal substances it's illegal to provide them to children. In other cases (coffee, for instance) there's a strong cultural pressure to avoid giving them to children in quantities where it would hurt them.
But milk is the opposite - there's a strong cultural push to give children milk as a primary component of their dietary needs for growth and development.
So when one examines legislation to reduce milk regulation and safety standards, one has to take into account the effects, and whether parents can be trusted to weigh the risks and accept the responsibility of their choices.
Similar to parents who leave their children in cars unattended, or who refuse medical intervention when their children become seriously ill, you should expect to see lawsuits and criminal abuse cases filed against parents whose children suffer from these issues because they chose raw milk and either trusted their supplier too much, or didn't properly handle the milk once they received it.
That said, there's a lot of E Coli going around in other foods, and when it's discovered the foods are quickly withdrawn, the cause dealt with, and the people treated properly to avoid the extreme effects of these illnesses, so we already have regulation and processes to cover this sort of situation without mandated pasteurization.
I mentioned this a few months ago. Still waiting for Drumpf to pull back the Hitler curtain.
Inauguration day, darkest timeline.
Kinda wish my mom could see this, but I don't think she'd watch a 45-minute video demonstrating how she and her friends are idiots.