Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
ISIS is saying to convert, pay the dhimmi tax, leave with only the clothes on your back (they're confiscating at checkpoints) or die to any Christians in Northern Iraq now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-iraq-security-christians-idUSKBN0FO0V520140719
I somewhat wonder how similar this is to early Muslim history in the area when their prophet was a warlord too.
Yes I'm being inflammatory. This is HAPPENING, not theory.
I somewhat wonder how similar this is to early Muslim history in the area when their prophet was a warlord too.
Yes I'm being inflammatory. This is HAPPENING, not theory.
Well, looks like my job's gonna be a bit busier six months from now when all those refugees come to the U.S. seeking asylum.
It is likely to affect my work too.
The article is a year old (not a month) and Franklin is being mis-quoted:
That being said, I think that the quote of Obama is idiotic, as you're NEVER going to have 100% safety unless everybody else is DEAD. Or other similarly extreme measures. Even a Police State is not safe at all, it is just safe from random violence (somewhat) but the state itself is being "violent" (or violating, take your pick) toward you. But IMO the "trust the government with your safety" is a much worse bet than empowering individuals. Yes individuals do stupid shit too, but it's less frequent than "the Man" or whatever. They need to balance each other out IMO. Having Big Brother (and yes I've read the book, so I know what that ACTUALLY means) looking into everything you're doing always... it's one reason I will try not to buy a "Smart TV" with a camera. Those things ARE basically what was everywhere in that novel. Government should not have that power.
TLDR: Freedom doesn't require the world to be like Mad Max, neither does safety require the world to be like the one in Equilibrium.
So... use as appropriate. The "essential liberty" phrase is pretty important, as is "temporary safety" as opposed to "little" both times. There's also some differing opinions on what that quote is regarding (not individual liberties) in any case.
That being said, I think that the quote of Obama is idiotic, as you're NEVER going to have 100% safety unless everybody else is DEAD. Or other similarly extreme measures. Even a Police State is not safe at all, it is just safe from random violence (somewhat) but the state itself is being "violent" (or violating, take your pick) toward you. But IMO the "trust the government with your safety" is a much worse bet than empowering individuals. Yes individuals do stupid shit too, but it's less frequent than "the Man" or whatever. They need to balance each other out IMO. Having Big Brother (and yes I've read the book, so I know what that ACTUALLY means) looking into everything you're doing always... it's one reason I will try not to buy a "Smart TV" with a camera. Those things ARE basically what was everywhere in that novel. Government should not have that power.
TLDR: Freedom doesn't require the world to be like Mad Max, neither does safety require the world to be like the one in Equilibrium.
The waves of people crossing from the border? I call that Monday through Friday.
But a surge from the middle east is unusual.
We've been having heavy influx since the cartel war started, but I'll take your word for it. I won't see the effect for a little while since my work is more related to removal rather than border patrol.
They're not talking about Syrians, they're talking about people from Central American countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, etc. China is probably number two for us, and they have a lot of people who want to leave.
Also, what we receive willingly isn't the same as what we get illegally.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
DC Appeals court kills Obamacare federal subsidies.
Obama: "You can't tell me what to do, court."
Obama: "You can't tell me what to do, court."
It won't matter in the long run. Even if the court finds that they can't do it as they are now, unless the states are willing to shoulder the burden and make it easily available to their residents (and some have made it clear that they won't because FUCK POOR PEOPLE) then the federal option will be the only way to fulfill the law whether it was the "intention" or not. Ether this law is going to obligate the states to do something their conservative governments don't want to do or it's going make it so that it's an entirely run federal show.
GasBandit
Staff member
Rick Perry does Obama's job for him, sends National Guard to the border.
Making it so will require congressional action, which might not go so well this time around. This wasn't a typo, the law specifically requires the subsidies to go through state exchanges (which many states refused to set up, or like poor Oregon, spent billions setting one up only to have it fail spectacularly). Even Obama's old Harvard law professor thinks this ruling might be what kills Obamacare.
GasBandit
Staff member
There go those nutty Palestinians again, putting rockets in schools.[DOUBLEPOST=1406055594,1406055352][/DOUBLEPOST]And now the 4th circuit court of appeals has issued its own ruling on federal obamacare subsidies, contradicting the previously reported one. Whuh oh. Looks like it's gonna have to go Supreme, y'all. Another opportunity for Roberts to buckle like a belt, no doubt.
Okay, I didn't realize so many kids were coming across the border recently. We get them often, but not usually in such large numbers. I feel bad for them. The gang situations in their countries have created a hell like none of us know in the U.S.
But our asylum laws don't protect them. In the end they're all go back, and will have the added brand of "coming from America" which will make them even more of targets, despite returning as poor as they left.
But our asylum laws don't protect them. In the end they're all go back, and will have the added brand of "coming from America" which will make them even more of targets, despite returning as poor as they left.
Necronic
Staff member
The ACA wording fight is a Hail Mary from the republicans. It's a technicality, albeit a gross and significant one, and clearly outside the intent of the law. I don't know how it will fair in the SCOTUS, it really could go either way, but if they lose in this one....I mean...how many times are we going to do this?
I'm actually more curious about your political system in that you can pass a law federally that compels your states to spend money. That alone is somewhat interesting, and bizarre. In other systems (Canada's) there is clear division of responsibility in that the feds can NOT make a law in something that's provincial responsibility. Likewise the other way around. Now the "weirdness" comes in that some are SHARED, but it's "supposed" to be agreed upon. If it's not, then nothing happens. There are 1000s of ways that exceptions to this are made (or deliberately circumvented) but that's the idea.
What about your system? It's odd to me that the feds can say "State X, we the feds say you must spend money, but we're not going to." Or is there something else here? I thought the feds WERE spending the money? What's the wrinkle? I haven't found a good source that doesn't analyze the implications of the ruling, but one that gives an actual analysis of the ruling itself.
What about your system? It's odd to me that the feds can say "State X, we the feds say you must spend money, but we're not going to." Or is there something else here? I thought the feds WERE spending the money? What's the wrinkle? I haven't found a good source that doesn't analyze the implications of the ruling, but one that gives an actual analysis of the ruling itself.
Rick Perry is going to spend $12 million to have 1,000 people stand in the desert and stare at Mexico.
GasBandit
Staff member
If only he'd have them put up some barbed wire while they're there.
More like "heavily incentivizing." They can't order the States to comply, but the Fed can withhold other desirable programs if they don't, a sort of "no allowance if you don't clean your room" situation, only on a much larger scale.
--Patrick
Just in case you weren't sure that ISIS wasn't run by great people, they just ordered the genital mutilation of about 4 million women.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...-order-female-genital-mutilation-in-Iraq.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...-order-female-genital-mutilation-in-Iraq.html
Senator Joe Manchin wants to make corporations renouncing their US citizenship illegal.
Why is that, Senator? Is it because your own daughter just made you look like a goddamned fool? Not that you need any help in that department.
(an aside to GB and such: that D by their names is just a vestigial remnant of the old party machines.)
Why is that, Senator? Is it because your own daughter just made you look like a goddamned fool? Not that you need any help in that department.
(an aside to GB and such: that D by their names is just a vestigial remnant of the old party machines.)
GasBandit
Staff member
From the link at the bottom of that article, I just learned that Rep. John Dingell's twitter feed is hilarious.
"Staff has now informed me of what a Kardashian is. I'm only left with more questions."
Us, too, John. Us, too.
What the...That doesn't even make sense! Genital mutilation is a tradition from *some* parts of the Islamic world, predating Islam. It goes completely against the Quran! It isn't even practiced in Syria or most of Iraq! This is just.....Gah!