|
DemeaninDemon posted:Do I have this right? Term limits are another half-assed, band-aid solution to a problem so ingrained into society that removing isn't exactly that simple and requires dethroning people who have true power. See also: deporting illegals and tort reform. Term limits can make sense, but really only for executive positions. And that's down to the fact that typically there's only a handful of elected executive offices versus dozens to hundreds of members of a legislative body, thus having the same dude able to skate by for term on term in executive positions can be way more of an issue.
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I always figured the difference between the Senate (long terms) and HoR (short terms) was a deliberate soft-checks-and-balances thing where the Representatives are meant to represent the Zeitgeist while the Senators represent institutional inertia. Yes, this. It was even more so when the Senators were appointed by state legislatures.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
effectual posted:So why do we still have them for the president, governors, etc? It actually is pretty bogus that many states set term limits for governor very low, and as for the president it'd probably be better to have the term limit set at 3 or something. Like there's a few states where the governor term limit is effectively a single term unless you wait one or two term cycles to be able to run again legally.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Is there any practical reason that the house is being kept to its current size? Do they just not want to rebuild the building to have more offices and stuff? No, there is no practical reason. The congress didn't bother to pass a normal post-census house size increase + reapportionment law after the 1920 census, and decided to declare it not a problem in 1929 by decreeing it would be 435 members (the current size then as now) until further notice. We would need to have more than 800-1000 representatives in order to actually exceed the limits of the current House chamber absent major remodeling - it's a pretty big space with a lot of available seating, especially if you make the mezzanine area part of official seating. It regularly holds over 1000 people during joint sessions of the house and congress with executive branch officials and various visitors attending. Edmund Lava posted:To my understanding they are required to vote in person and the House is out of room to add more seats. This is only true in that they haven't bothered to put in more seats officially designated as for the house members. It already has formal seating for the entire senate plus the current house, and there's tons more room besides that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Truthfully, gently caress blue dogs. I'd rather have a combative congress than have to deal with the loving blue dogs again. Noted: forums user Pohl supports the government shutdown.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I actually kind of like you. I enjoy reading your posts. It's a sign of paranoia that you think Reading Threads qualifies as stalking you. Get the hell over yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Well, it's better than arguing over which city in Texas is the coolest. Well that's easy, none at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Question to Texas goons, why is Keep Austin Weird racist? Because it's mostly said by very white people. Very white people who don't want any changes to "their" sections of Austin and certainly don't consider the minority parts of Austin to be part of "keeping austin weird".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Eh, gently caress it, let's compare: I grew up in a town very integrated: http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer?view=raceethnicity&lat=40.0554&lng=-74.863&l=12
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Frankly, ticketing for just driving in the left lane is dumb. Lots of annoying two lane per side freeways out there where there's little purpose to constantly finding another gap in the slow vehicles to merge behind until you catch up and need to pass again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:I'm not the least bit surprised you're the kind of person who sits in the left lane til their exit comes up. I don't sit in the left lane unless the right lane is full of people crawling along under the speed limit and there's no center lane. You gotta get past the dawdlers. Rotaries and traffic circles have the same rules, but you're kinda ignoring the fact that most of the traffic circles have been ripped out over the years and replaced with other junction or interchange styles due to exceeding their original like 1938 design standards, and the rest are on track to be replaced when there's highway funding available.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Biden looks like a lich. No, there ain't a lot of 35-40 challengers around now.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
zoux posted:Who are you voting for? What's the difference between the Marijuana and the Independent Hemp Party? Personally I prefer the People's Front of Reefer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Why is everything so orange There was a Boehner leak nearby
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Oh, I get it, from not using condoms and stuff. It's so hard for me to imagine a situation where teens wouldn't know about the whole condom thing but I guess it can happen in the right environment. They sure won't know about condoms when all talk of them is banned, the local stores make it difficult to buy them, and whenever anyone in a position of authority talks about them it's to explain that they'll totally not work and you'll get double-gonorrhea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
A lot of people don't seem to be understanding that what Shbobdb is saying is that the only thing abstinence education manages is slightly reduced amounts of sex (coupled with higher teen pregnancy and higher rates of STDs), while actual sex education heavily reduces teenage pregnancy and STD transmission.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
The local DARE program spent a lot of time emphasizing that you really shouldn't ever gently caress around with eg heroin, meth and cocaine. They mentioned that weed is against the law, but it was the drugs that were actually dangerous that they made sure to impress on us.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
mooyashi posted:Where on earth do you live that people give a rat's rear end about whether you smoke weed in your rental peoperty? Somewhere with an rear end in a top hat landlord, duh.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Also, if you're hung up about getting your security deposit back you're either irrationally cheap or you've never rented an apartment before this one, seriously! \ Or maybe he's broke you heartless moron.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/20/us-usa-politics-obama-idUSKCN0I80V320141020?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews That's a good 250 miles away from New England. Anyway, poo poo, I've been to Obama rallies before and left before the event ended - he tends to get the good stuff in by the middle of his appearance. Sure he's the President but it's not like he's going to be upset that I left a bit early. Anyway the specific town he showed up in there, it's 12 miles outside the borders of Washington DC. So people in the area have plenty of opportunities to show up to places Obama's speaking in general. People who live around there are themselves as likely as not to be directly employed for the federal government or being contractors one step from being employed directly. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Oct 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Why would a sovereign citizen dude want to be part of the government? Many soverign citizen dudes earnestly believe that they could "fix" government by returning it to their idea of a "legal" state. So you know, the child support and driver's license laws are clearly unconstitutional but having city roads is ok.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I'm kind of wondering --- what can be done to stop this awful trainwreck of a political process and fix the nation? This latest poo poo in Georgia is only the most visible one, but similar stuff has been done by In seriousness? An actual domestic terrorist group that acts at large scale, and thus forces active response. It could be of any stripe of political culture, though for obvious reasons if it was one that advocates things we don't then it would tend to pretty well tarnish everything they support. Imagine what we might have had happening if those desert-farmer morons had tried to blow up federal buildings in Vegas or whatever while spouting their slogans instead of sitting out 50 miles outside of Shitstick Flats, population 9.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 06:06
|
|
.
|
MizPiz posted:Same thing that happened after that one couple killed a some people in Vegas, the establishment will call them "apolitical" or "technically leftist" while the fringes cry false flag. I don't mean pissant kill 3 guys stuff, I mean long term killing thousands of people a week for months at a time stuff, Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:What's weird is that unless I am mistaken, Hollywood actually has reflected the difference between the 70s and 80s, when street crime was heading up with no end in sight, and now. I can't think of any popular Dirty Harry type movie series that started since crime started its decline. Yet, people still haven't caught on that things really are going in a different direction now. I suppose one should determine what the demographics are that still think the crime rate is rising. Quite frankly, a lot of "gentrification" wouldn't be happening if people moving in still genuinely believed in threats of criminals running rampant, and you don't tend to associate people moving to hip neighborhoods with grandpa-aged folks. Triskelli posted:Okay, on a list of "Things that are killing americans" school shootings are as about as statisitically significant as deaths from Ebola, but the fact that we even have school shootings when other developed nations have few to none is important. We just need to move the discussion away from "no one should ever have guns" and "it's my right to be able to walk into Wal-mart and buy a shotgun no questions asked", and being able to intercept people buying them for emotional reasons. I'll give you a little hint here on why this doesn't work in arguments online: the people who are angry about having any gun control at all ARE the people who buy for "emotional" reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
I don't see how that's scummy. You wouldn't get Ford to give you free vehicles for shooting if your movie was going to call them lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, they will impound your car, but you can have it back. Regardless, even if you want to argue that impounding is similar enough to confiscation, the fact that the scheme he described isn't at all like driver's license still stands for the several other reasons. Yeah, you can have it back if you place it in your driveway and never let it move sure. So I take it you'd be ok with guns having all parts necessary for firing removed then?  Edmund Lava posted:I was under the impression that even with CGI the military will lend an adviser to "make sure it's accurate". Hence why video games fall into the same trap despite not needing props. It's not a trap dude, it's an active marketing ploy. "Military approved" sells pretty well and as a bonus it alienates just about no potential consumers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:They don't disable your car, you just aren't allowed to operate it on government property. In other words you can't use it unless you are a massive landowner. For the vast majority of people in this nation this means the car is inoperable unless you really like going a few feet backwards and forwards in a garage/driveway. By that standard it's ok to remove the firing mechanisms from your guns if you lose your gun license because hey, you could still manually set up a black powder contraption in there to shoot it, right?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is not at all true, they can allow other people to use it or use it illegally (edit: this is what actually happens) or use it somewhere private if they can get someone to transport it there. This analogy is obviously terrible what value do you think it has? Even if it were correct (which it isn't), there's no reason to think that guns and cars should have similar regulations. It is possible to have a car impounded though as punishment for repeated license violations though. There are also insurance regulations that can mean someone cannot in fact lend out out their car as it won't be under legal insurance, and so on. There are many man y ways that repeat traffic offenders can have their car be unable to be legally used period. Edmund Lava posted:And if they did how would we know? The entertainment industry is basically a propaganda arm for the military. Not that this is anything new, and it doesn't hurt studios bottom lines. We would know because it's easy to make a "military is bad" movie without actual military assets.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:You're just re-making old arguments. So are you, guy who's mad that anyone would dare regulate guns. Why don't you give them a kiss.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:They did it because their standard for assistance is accurate representation, not pushing a message*. If they only assist Top Gun style flicks that leads them into murky waters of censorship and a shitload of lawsuits because some film makers didn't get a subsidy, not to mention the issue of freedom of speech being a positive right or not. The nadir of Military Approved films is surely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Starfighters
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2014 02:53
|
|