Jurgan posted:

No it didn't. The Democratic-Republican Party gradually split into various factions, but the Democrats were a separate entity that appeared later. Andrew Jackson was its first president, not Jefferson.

Edit: That drat plumber thing! Yeah, I saw that one this morning. Anything that approvingly references Ayn Rand should automatically be suspect.

Zeitgueist posted:

http://conservativetribune.com/obama-call-a-plumber/

Davethulhu posted:

It's a good thing everyone was required to buy "plumbing insurance". After a $100 co-pay, the insurance company pays for the rest of the work.

Jurgan posted:

No it didn't. The Democratic-Republican Party gradually split into various factions, but the Democrats were a separate entity that appeared later. Andrew Jackson was its first president, not Jefferson.

Edit: That drat plumber thing! Yeah, I saw that one this morning. Anything that approvingly references Ayn Rand should automatically be suspect.

CaptainCarrot posted:

There was never actually any such thing as the Democratic-Republican Party. Jefferson and company started calling themselves Republicans, harkening to the ideals of a republic rather than a monarchy, and Federalists called them Democrats, pejoratively referring to their populism as opposed to being guided by wealthy, educated men of property. Democratic-Republican is a term invented by historians that nobody at that time actually used.

Davethulhu posted:

It's a good thing everyone was required to buy "plumbing insurance". After a $100 co-pay, the insurance company pays for the rest of the work.

Scruff McGruff posted:

Jurgan posted:

No it didn't. The Democratic-Republican Party gradually split into various factions, but the Democrats were a separate entity that appeared later. Andrew Jackson was its first president, not Jefferson.

Edit: That drat plumber thing! Yeah, I saw that one this morning. Anything that approvingly references Ayn Rand should automatically be suspect.

S-U-P-E-R posted:

Haven't seen one of these in a while!



I don't support a foreign policy of perpetual war for oil, so I guess I should probably be shot.

S-U-P-E-R posted:

Haven't seen one of these in a while!



I don't support a foreign policy of perpetual war for oil, so I guess I should probably be shot.

J.A.B.C. posted:

Please don't stand in front of us. Range days are hard enough as is without some whackadoodle causing a safety hazard.

Also, what kind of shot is that? They're wearing ghillie on their helmets, but there's no trees/shurbbery to blend in with and that one jackass on the left decided to be different today. None of those rifles are at the low ready. They're clearly wearing BDUs (Black boots) in a desert environment. No eyepro or gloves on anyone. And that Instagram filter would definitely make this photo ineligible for any sort of media release due to excess alteration changing the mood and message of the scene.

Gravel Gravy posted:

Because the more military stuff condensed into one shot is directly proportional to how bad rear end the photo should be.

Poizen Jam posted:

Woodland camo in a desert environment is the opposite of badass. It's the Canadian Forces circa 2002

Samfucius posted:

I.... what? Southern Strategy points aside, Teddy was in the Progressive wing of the GOP. You know, the ones that hated big business so much that trustbusting was their breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Teddy was more liberal than Obama by a large margin.

PupsOfWar posted:

On domestics, sure, but conservatives are willing to forgive domestic liberalism or populism if you are sufficiently enthusiastic about killing foreigners, which Teddy was.

's why Truman will be the easiest democrat to put on Mount Rushmore 2.0

mintskoal posted:

Relative of mine posted this on my wall and is now on some derail about the SSA buying ammo.

Cognac McCarthy posted:

I think you're actually overthinking why Republicans like calling attention to the fact that Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican at this point. Some Republican voters might be able to tell you about his role in the Spanish American war, and far fewer will know anything about his trust busting so they're not even at a point where they'll "forgive him" for being anti-business.

There's a reason why they trot his name out at the RNC every 4 years, and why they never actually say anything about why they like him. It's really just a name they can associate with the brand at this point, and because he's one of the more recognizable and famous presidents from the era, they see it as a good way of making themselves look successful with three famous presidencies (Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan). At most they use him because he's remembered as sort of notoriously (and comically) masculine, so they can contrast him with sissy Democrats I guess.

mintskoal posted:

Relative of mine posted this on my wall and is now on some derail about the SSA buying ammo.

Rick_Hunter posted:

Is this because old numbers get reused because if not we'd eventually run out of numbers?

BonoMan posted:

It's because they weren't automatically annotated as deceased once they hit the limit of "reasonable life expectancy."

It's actually a legit thing that drew some bipartisan ire because it's wasting a lot of money (although spending a little to fix it would the answer but NOOOOOO can't have government spending now can we?).
And because some of the SSNs are being used in fraudulent behavior.

But like... a teeny tiny percentage. The 6.5 million are NOT. It's less than 100K I think.

BonoMan posted:

It's because they weren't automatically annotated as deceased once they hit the limit of "reasonable life expectancy."

It's actually a legit thing that drew some bipartisan ire because it's wasting a lot of money (although spending a little to fix it would the answer but NOOOOOO can't have government spending now can we?).
And because some of the SSNs are being used in fraudulent behavior.

But like... a teeny tiny percentage. The 6.5 million are NOT. It's less than 100K I think.

quote:

We also determined that thousands of the SSNs could have been used to commit identity fraud.

• For Tax Years 2006 through 2011, SSA received reports that individuals using 66,920 SSNs had approximately $3.1 billion in wages, tips, and self-employment income. SSA transferred the earnings to the Earnings Suspense File because the employees’ or self-employed individuals’ names on the earnings reports did not match the numberholders’ names.
  
• During Calendar Years 2008 through 2011, employers made 4,024 E-Verify inquiries using 3,873 SSNs belonging to numberholders born before June 16, 1901.

quote:

• In 96 cases, SSA had superimposed 2 individuals’ PII on the same Numident record—1 born before and 1 after June 16, 1901. The individual receiving benefit payments was the person born after June 16, 1901.
  
• In 68 cases, the name of the individual receiving benefits under the SSN was different than the name on the numberholders’ Numident. This occurred because SSA had established the incorrect SSN on the beneficiaries’ payment record—primarily because of transposition errors.
  
• In 37 cases, the beneficiary’s payment record contained a date of birth on or after June 16, 1901, but their Numident records contained a date of birth before June 16, 1901. We believe it is likely these beneficiaries were younger than 112-years-old, and the dates of birth on the Numident were incorrect. However, when processing the benefit claim, SSA did not notice or resolve the date-of-birth discrepancies.
  
• In 52 cases, the beneficiary’s payment record contained a date of birth on or after June 16, 1901, and their Numident contained multiple entries with different dates of birth, 1 before June 16, 1901, and 1 on or after June 16, 1901. We believe it likely the later birthdates on these records were correct, and these beneficiaries were younger than 112-years-old.

Mo_Steel posted:

It's a problem that should be fixed no doubt, but it's not "6.5 million people voted for Obunglar!"

Luigi Thirty posted:

and ours our painted white

Popular Thug Drink posted:

aren't some of those 'activated' dead people numbers because they've been reassigned to living young citizens?

Wiggles Von Huggins posted:

They do not reuse SSNs.

edit
Well not purposefully.

quote:

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

Scruff McGruff posted:

Luigi Thirty posted:

Nooo I saw a great image macro on how we live in a police state because European cop cars are painted bright green and ours our painted white so you don't know if a cop's about to write you a speeding ticket but he deleted it.

Guavanaut posted:

This one?

1stGear posted:

I'm pretty sure the majority of American cops aren't rolling around in KITT from Knight Rider and I know from extensive experience watching Hot Fuzz that European police set up speed traps and stuff too. So I call bunk.

Mo_Steel posted:

IG Report


Without a doubt there is fraud present within that 60,000 over the course of 5 years; but you know what Voter ID isn't going to catch? The person who has ID because they used a dead persons SSN when they went to get the ID.

Around 200 of the numbers were getting benefits, but those cases were clerical / record-keeping errors and the people were correct:


It's a problem that should be fixed no doubt, but it's not "6.5 million people voted for Obunglar!"

1stGear posted:

I'm pretty sure the majority of American cops aren't rolling around in KITT from Knight Rider and I know from extensive experience watching Hot Fuzz that European police set up speed traps and stuff too. So I call bunk.

Guavanaut posted:

It's telling that all they could find as evidence was the color of the police cars, and not the incarceration rates, or the shooting of unarmed black teenagers (although European police have been known to do that too, at a lower rate).

Guavanaut posted:

It's telling that all they could find as evidence was the color of the police cars, and not the incarceration rates, or the shooting of unarmed black teenagers (although European police have been known to do that too, at a lower rate).

TheMaskedChemist posted:

Or the fact that your average SWAT unit is well enough armed to annex a small country.

Rick_Hunter posted:

I feel like there's a bias when reporting about the police inside vs outside the United States where we call our police the cops, police, SWAT, etc and other countries' state patrol or national police is called paramilitary. Confirm/deny? discuss.