Government Shutdown
-
@boomzilla said:
I'm not sure of a significant political party in other parts of the world that is even as tepidly pro-freedom as the Republican party (which is only most, but not all of the American Right).
The freedom as a same-sex couple to get married? The freedom to have your life ended in a dignified manner by a physician if you're suffering intolerably and incurably?Freedom is not something absolute. It has different meanings in different parts of the world. You could even argue that government subsidies allow someone the freedom to pursue the life he wants to lead. Whether that is something desirable (until not too long ago, the Dutch government would support painters and sculptors, and before even buy their art that nobody wanted) is a different issue.
The fact of the matter is that unbridled capitalism, as witnessed during the Industrial Revolution, leads to near servitude and abject poverty for those who do not have the means, and will never have them either. There's little freedom in that, when your free choice is to either work 80+ hours a week for a pittance, or starve in the streets. In that sense, communism is much fairer, because at least everybody leads a miserable life (except the party bosses of course).
I would dare say that some of the liberal parties in Europe are more pro-freedom than the Republicans, if you consider the entire picture.
-
@joe.edwards said:
For our amusement, would you describe what your hypothetical ideal political party would look like? What kinds of things would it advocate [please be more specific than "more/less government"], what policies might it support, where would its budget be focused?
I would describe myself as basically libertarian, though that largely stops at the waters edge. So, OK, here's a quick run down, off the top of my head, for things at the federal / national level:
- Return to the rule of law, especially for the government.
- More emphasis on repealing laws than passing new ones.
- Eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy entirely.
- Convert Social Security to something like what Chile did.
- Get rid of Medicare, though there's no way to completely get rid of that middle class entitlement completely. Better would be to simply hand out a check and allow people to use that money as they see fit to purchase insurance, or not.
- Return the power that the legislature has delegated to the Executive (overlaps with repealing laws, but could alternatively be something like having congress vote for final approval of agency rules / regulations).
- Repeal the 16th amendment and have state legislatures appoint Senators again.
One thing that government does is that it crowds out private solutions, and we assume that anything currently met by government can only be met by a government solution. In general, and especially at the federal level, I would be against the government providing non-public goods.
-
@FrostCat said:
@StephenCleary said:
@eViLegion said:
I'm not talking about the politics that cause this to happen. I'm talking about it being the default option.
You can't really separate those. It's the default option purely for political reasons. :)
The funny thing is, I used to work in government archives (before programming), and I have just a tiny inkling of the massive amounts of money that our government wastes every day on absolute crap. Whenever a "government shutdown" happens, the person-wanting-more-money (who is always the current person-in-power) makes sure to shut down the parts of the government that people will notice - so things like the national parks are first on the cutting block.
But that's completely unnecessary. There are countless[1] things our government is constantly doing that no one would (immediately) notice if they were cut, yet they continue right along during a "shutdown".
-Steve
[1] OK, it's not actually countless. I strongly suspect (but have not proved) that it's aleph-null. :)
The fact that there is so much waste--while troglodytes like Nancy Pelosi claim there's nothing left to cut--is why so many people have a hard time getting worked up about this slimdown. You are wasting tons of money already, and borrowing a trillion dollars a year to do it, but you can't find something to cut?
Most of the federal government employees should be fired with prejudice, and start over from scratch.
As an European that has seen governments try austerity, I'm honestly pretty worried (and intrigued) about the USA. It seems like you're living the same situation but a hundred times larger and with a 5 year delay. Combined with US politics seeming pretty fucked up (no offense but people there seem to be more fanatic about their ideas than anywhere else. What other country still rejects evolution and climate change? Or has a channel like Fox News that's actually popular? Or such an extreme two-party system?), and having a huge military, well, it seems like things could get interesting at any moment.
I doubt austerity will happen though. You can't just go and cut the government spending by 30% in a year, it has terrible efects on the (short term?) economy. Even if the only alternative is making bigger and bigger piles of debt. Althought with the Tea party around, I'm guessing anything is possible.
-
@Severity One said:
@boomzilla said:
I'm not sure of a significant political party in other parts of the world that is even as tepidly pro-freedom as the Republican party (which is only most, but not all of the American Right).
The freedom as a same-sex couple to get married? The freedom to have your life ended in a dignified manner by a physician if you're suffering intolerably and incurably?Yes, you've found some of the sort of exceptions to which I alluded, though these are muddier than you think you are. Especially making it legal for a doctor to murder a patient.
@Severity One said:
The fact of the matter is that unbridled capitalism, as witnessed during the Industrial Revolution, leads to near servitude and abject poverty for those who do not have the means, and will never have them either. There's little freedom in that, when your free choice is to either work 80+ hours a week for a pittance, or starve in the streets. In that sense, communism is much fairer, because at least everybody leads a miserable life (except the party bosses of course).
As opposed to the total servitude and abject poverty that they had prior to the Industrial Revolution? I think you're ignoring a lot of things here. About the only thing you got right is that everyone but the guys at the top are miserable (including that there was "unbridled capitalism" at the dawn of the IR).
@Severity One said:
I would dare say that some of the liberal parties in Europe are more pro-freedom than the Republicans, if you consider the entire picture.
People dare stupid things all the time. Why stop now? (I'm assuming that you don't mean "classically liberal" when you say liberal, or I would probably agree with you...Estonia comes to mind).
-
@spamcourt said:
As an European that has seen governments try austerity, I'm honestly pretty worried (and intrigued) about the USA.
Define austerity. Mostly, it has meant, "raise taxes and slow the growth of spending." Which is pretty much what we've been doing lately.
@spamcourt said:
What other country still rejects evolution and climate change?
I can't think of any, including the US. True, there is a somewhat vocal minority who argue against evolution, but pretty much everyone believes that the climate changes. But if you're asking why we aren't as gullible about WTF computer model predictions, then I think you need to look within.
@spamcourt said:
Or has a channel like Fox News that's actually popular?
This sort of criticism cracks me up. But I'll play along, and ask for clarification. You mean, a channel that has both straight news and commentary? Or a channel that people like to criticize without watching it?
-
@dkf said:
Quite a substantial proportion of the Fed employees are the military; firing lots of them at once is unlikely to end well. Failing to pay the army has been the downfall of many a government in many countries over the past few thousand years; there's no reason to expect things to be any different this time either. Assuming that people with guns — and training in how to use them properly in a group — will just sit there and take it up the ass from a bunch of plutocrats who only seek to enrich themselves… well, that would be TRWTF.
Isn't that why the US is so keen on retaining the citizenry's rights to bear arms, so people can protect themselves against exactly that - a military enforcing the will of the government, or a military deciding it wants to dictate the will of the government?
-
@Paddles said:
As a bonus, having lots of guns allows us to use the words "minor shooting incident" together.@dkf said:
Quite a substantial proportion of the Fed employees are the military; firing lots of them at once is unlikely to end well. Failing to pay the army has been the downfall of many a government in many countries over the past few thousand years; there's no reason to expect things to be any different this time either. Assuming that people with guns — and training in how to use them properly in a group — will just sit there and take it up the ass from a bunch of plutocrats who only seek to enrich themselves… well, that would be TRWTF.
Isn't that why the US is so keen on retaining the citizenry's rights to bear arms, so people can protect themselves against exactly that - a military enforcing the will of the government, or a military deciding it wants to dictate the will of the government?
-
@joe.edwards said:
@FrostCat said:
Most of the federal government employees should be fired with prejudice, and start over from scratch.
I'm sure suddenly firing millions of Americans won't have any deleterious impact on our economy. Nope, none whatsoever.I'm sure it probably would. We can send them off to some European country that likes bureaucracy more than Americans, on the whole, do. I bet the parasites of the EU bureaucracy would love having a few more drones.
-
@spamcourt said:
As an European that has seen governments try austerity, I'm honestly pretty worried (and intrigued) about the USA. It seems like you're living the same situation but a hundred times larger and with a 5 year delay. Combined with US politics seeming pretty fucked up (no offense but people there seem to be more fanatic about their ideas than anywhere else. What other country still rejects evolution and climate change? Or has a channel like Fox News that's actually popular? Or such an extreme two-party system?), and having a huge military, well, it seems like things could get interesting at any moment.
I doubt austerity will happen though. You can't just go and cut the government spending by 30% in a year, it has terrible efects on the (short term?) economy. Even if the only alternative is making bigger and bigger piles of debt. Althought with the Tea party around, I'm guessing anything is possible.
I'd like to know what your definition of austerity is. My understanding is that most of what the Europeans have been screaming about is a reduction in the rate of growth. In other words, while the British claimed they had these terribly austere budgets, each year they spent more than the previous year.
I realize the radical downsizing of the government would cause a lot of local disruption, possibly even a large amount of long-term disruption. I suspect in the long run everyone would be better. Every day we hear stories about government agencies wasting untold amounts of money, about the USDA sending inspecters after stage magicians to make sure that their pet rabbits are licensed and that the magicians have disaster recovery plans, about guitar companies being raided for buying wood from India that was legally processed in India and legally sold to that American company, and lately about the government spending money to disable web sites and put barrycades in front of open-air monuments not paid for by the federal government, in a shallow and desperate attempt to make We The People feel enough pain that we tell the Republicans to stop trying to spend a little less money than the Democrats.
Look up the Cloward-Piven strategy. It was explicitly designed to get so many people dependent on government that the government would crash, unable to keep up with the money it was hemhorraging. The goal was to replace the government with an explicitly Progressive one. That would not have been a good thing, as pretty much every Progressive goal has hurt people.
-
Re: Government Shut up
To everyone who posted in this thread:
TL;DR
-
@Ben L. said:
To everyone who posted in this thread:
TL;DR
The fastest diagnosis for either ADHD or DGAS
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@Ben L. said:
Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc.?To everyone who posted in this thread:
TL;DR
The fastest diagnosis for either ADHD or DGAS
-
@Ben L. said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
@Ben L. said:
Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc.?To everyone who posted in this thread:
TL;DR
The fastest diagnosis for either ADHD or DGAS
Try using Urban Dictionary....
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@Ben L. said:
That would require scrolling.@TheCPUWizard said:
@Ben L. said:
Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc.?To everyone who posted in this thread:
TL;DR
The fastest diagnosis for either ADHD or DGAS
Try using Urban Dictionary....
-
@boomzilla said:
@koek said:
No, it's clearly implied you loathe foreigners but you aren't ballsy enough to admit it. Did you install iNotRacist on your cell?@boomzilla said:@boomzilla said:
I'm never sure how to respond to non sequiturs. How about, "Purple bunny rabbits aren't impossible, just impractical."I'm fine with them spying on the rest of the world.
So you, presumably as an American, don't trust anyone but Americans?@koek said:
It's obviously relevant because your government is doing just that but with dollars. Did you conveniently forget this fact? Because that would be indicative of ties with secret services.@boomzilla said:I, for one as a European, take issue with that. Why should any European country waste tax euros on extracting and analysing metadata out of everyones online communications?
I have no idea why this is relevant.
@koek said:
Quite. Which can only mean that the NSA is in direct violation of civil rights.@boomzilla said:What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Nothing?
@koek said:
I'm talking about the [url=http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/]universal declaration of human rights[/url] (it would be perfectly excusable not to know these if you're a robot) in which article 1 grants everyone equal dignity and rights. Meaning if my rights and dignity are compromised, then so are yours.Your article 1 of the universal declaration of human rights is the same as my article 1.
WTF are you talking about? Are you an account for Ben L.'s new markov chain program?
-
@Ben L. said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
Your Google appears to be broken...@Ben L. said:
That would require scrolling.@TheCPUWizard said:
@Ben L. said:
Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc.?To everyone who posted in this thread:
TL;DR
The fastest diagnosis for either ADHD or DGAS
Try using Urban Dictionary....
-
UK 'Austerity' (Was Re: Government Shutdown)
@FrostCat said:
while the British claimed they had these terribly austere budgets, each year they spent more than the previous year.
The UK government is spinning that they're reducing 'the structural deficit[1]' in such a way that it implies they're cutting down on debt, when in fact all they've cut down is the rate at which it increases.
This is what they are calling 'Austerity.' And they're abusing the term.
[1] essentially [government spending] - [tax receipts]; until this equation becomes negative, the overall debt is going to increase. The Chancellor claims that while he accepts this won't happen in this parliament, but "will in the next" - i.e. sometime between 2015 and 2020. Presuming, of course, his party gets an overall majority in the next Parliament - which is by no means a foregone conclusion since they didn't get one this time, and they're doing nothing to endear themselves to vast swathes of the public. Not that the official opposition is doing much better in this regard.
-
@boomzilla said:
Especially making it legal for a doctor to murder a patient.
It's legal for your governments (both state and federal) to murder inmates, although they use a differentphrase for that. So the idea that one person can legally kill another person, under specific circumstances, is not at all far-fetched. And there are very strict guidelines before a doctor can comply with the explicit request of a patient to have his life ended.
@boomzilla said:
People dare stupid things all the time. Why stop now? (I'm assuming that you don't mean "classically liberal" when you say liberal, or I would probably agree with you...Estonia comes to mind).
I'm talking about freedom in all its aspects. If you define freedom as a measure of non-interference by a government, than freedom is mostly available to those who can afford it.An overbearing government, such as favoured by socialists, leads to a more or less equal amount of freedom for everybody, but it's a freedom that is severely curtailed. If you remove most (or all) state interference, you inevitably end up in a situation where the freedom of some (or many) is curtailed because they don't have the means. Ideally, a government should be just overbearing enough to guarantee that everybody has a fair chance to achieve, and pursue that freedom. To provide a sort of safety net that ensures that you don't starve (or die because you can't afford health insurance), but not to the extend that it removes the incentive to find a job.
A concrete example is the liberal (classically liberal I presume) Dutch constitution of 1848. Before that, the Netherlands were an absolute monarchy, with the king appointing most members of parliament (usually nobility). The fact that the Dutch are so damn tall can be traced back directly to that constitution, which led to a more equal distribution of wealth.
The American Dream is just that: a dream. There are always the
stories of those who have achieved, thanks to the great amount of
freedom that you have, but the vast majority does not. They may be
working in a steel mill, waiting for the next round of layoffs. There's a lot to be learned from the USA, such as the flexible labour market (which is stagnated in most of Europe, and a major part of the lacklustre economic growth over the past decades). But there are things that we do better, too.
-
@koek said:
No, it's clearly implied you loathe foreigners but you aren't ballsy enough to admit it. Did you install iNotRacist on your cell?
See...there you go again. Why does foreign imply different race? You're really declaring your unseriousness here.
Now, maybe in your UN world of human rights and unicorn farts, you trust everyone, but here in the real world, we don't do that. For instance, I would not hesitate to leave my kids with my parents or a sibling. But I would be much less likely to do the same thing with a random family that I did not know well. The same sort of thing applies to other countries. It's possible that your European security apparatuses have so withered away that they don't spy on other countries, but I'm sure at least the French and British do so. I'm equally sure that we spend more effort looking at, say, Iran, than anyone in Europe. Of course, since a lot of people who want to do us harm are living or at least moving through Europe, there's reason to be looking at signals in friendly countries, too. Not to mention the bad guy governments have operations there that may be more insecure than what's going on at home.
@koek said:@boomzilla said:
@koek said:
I, for one as a European, take issue with that. Why should any European country waste tax euros on extracting and analysing metadata out of everyones online communications?
I have no idea why this is relevant.
It's obviously relevant because your government is doing just that but with dollars. Did you conveniently forget this fact? Because that would be indicative of ties with secret services.OK. I guess you just didn't finish the thought, which was wrong, because that's exactly what I was talking about being against. Lots of things are indicative to you that are hidden from the rest of us. I'm not sure there actually is much analysis going on, and the wastefulness of the program may be the best argument against it. In fact, the mere collection may not be an actual violation of the law, which is not the same, of course, as being right or good.
@koek said:
Which can only mean that the NSA is in direct violation of civil rights.
Yes. We are in agreement here (though it's not actually clear that they are violating civil rights), but it's still different than "innocent until proven guilty." It's more due process and unlawful searches. Probably some posse comitatus thrown in for good measure. It's like arguing that 2+2=5 is wrong because you can't divide by zero.
-
@Severity One said:
@boomzilla said:
Especially making it legal for a doctor to murder a patient.
It's legal for your governments (both state and federal) to murder inmates, although they use a different phrase for that. So the idea that one person can legally kill another person, under specific circumstances, is not at all far-fetched. And there are very strict guidelines before a doctor can comply with the explicit request of a patient to have his life ended.Touché! We can also go to war.
@Severity One said:
An overbearing government, such as favoured by socialists, leads to a more or less equal amount of freedom for everybody, but it's a freedom that is severely curtailed.
Yes, it's deliberately making life suck for the maximum amount of people.
@Severity One said:
If you remove most (or all) state interference, you inevitably end up in a situation where the freedom of some (or many) is curtailed because they don't have the means.
Maybe, but you're talking about something that practically no one really advocates (i.e., anarcho-capitalist internet kooks). In reality, I suspect you just end up with a different sort of government (e.g., Somalia, Afghanistan).
@Severity One said:
The American Dream is just that: a dream. There are always the
stories of those who have achieved, thanks to the great amount of
freedom that you have, but the vast majority does not.The American Dream isn't really about getting rich. It's about being able to support yourself and have a decent life. It's true that not everyone will be able to do that, but the vast majority are capable. There's just no avoiding some failure in this world. But the vast majority are capable of it, and it's really sad to see people vote for and advocate policies that provide incentives for people to fuck their lives up.
-
@boomzilla said:
Why does foreign imply different race?
It doesn't, but it's the same line of reasoning. Other countries: bad, therefore people from other countries: also bad. How can you tell? Easy, if someone looks caucasian and speak-a the english all is well. If not, welp, can't trust that person.@boomzilla said:Now, maybe in your UN world of human rights and unicorn farts
All of my wat. Only an American can be this ignorant towards the UN.@boomzilla said:you trust everyone
...*equally* (joe.edwards gets this), knowhere in the UDHR does it say you can/can't trust anyone. But it legally prohibits tragedies such as Abu Ghraib and Gitmo where people are deprived of their human dignity and rights (articles 5 and 11) and also prohibits discrimination (articles 1 and 2).@boomzilla said:For instance, I would not hesitate to leave my kids with my parents or a sibling. But I would be much less likely to do the same thing with a random family that I did not know well. The same sort of thing applies to other countries.
The analogy is flawed, because in this case your parents are abusing everyone's kids except maybe yours so you're a-ok with them. They're likely to abuse your kids too, eventually, but it'd be [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...]too late[/url].@boomzilla said:It's possible that your European security apparatuses have so withered away that they don't spy on other countries, but I'm sure at least the French and British do so.
The DGSE and GCHQ should be shut down as well, the fact that they run their own PRISM programs doesn't justify the NSA to run theirs.@boomzilla said:I'm equally sure that we spend more effort looking at, say, Iran, than anyone in Europe.
Are you merely speculating that or is there anything you can back that up with?@boomzilla said:Of course, since a lot of people who want to do us harm are living or at least moving through Europe, there's reason to be looking at signals in friendly countries, too.
That's a bold claim as recent events (school shootings, Boston) suggest that the people who want to do you harm are amongst you.@boomzilla said:Not to mention the bad guy governments have operations there that may be more insecure than what's going on at home.
From what we know, only the NSA has had its internal documents exposed so far. So I wouldn't bet on that, either.@boomzilla said:Lots of things are indicative to you that are hidden from the rest of us.
How do you mean 'indicative to me'?@boomzilla said:the wastefulness of the program may be the best argument against it
If your representatives really care about your tax money (spending it, that is) perhaps, but I'm skeptical on that. @boomzilla said:In fact, the mere collection may not be an actual violation of the law
In fact, the NSA has overstepped their legal power.@boomzilla said:it's still different than "innocent until proven guilty."
Yes, but what I meant is that law enforcement only investigates criminal suspects. To investigate everyone means to consider everyone a suspect of crime.@boomzilla said:It's like arguing that 2+2=5 is wrong because you can't divide by zero.
It can be correct with operator overloading (operand *= 1,25).
-
@koek said:
@boomzilla said:
you trust everyone
...equally (joe.edwards gets this), knowhere in the UDHR does it say you can/can't trust anyone. But it legally prohibits tragedies such as Abu Ghraib and Gitmo where people are deprived of their human dignity and rights (articles 5 and 11) and also prohibits discrimination (articles 1 and 2).And guess what, the stuff done at Abu Ghraib was illegal and punished! The UN never entered into it. Gitmo is a place to intern irregular prisoners of war. I guess we can't have any prisons according to your interpretation of the UN.
@koek said:
@boomzilla said:
For instance, I would not hesitate to leave my kids with my parents or a sibling. But I would be much less likely to do the same thing with a random family that I did not know well. The same sort of thing applies to other countries.
The analogy is flawed, because in this case your parents are abusing everyone's kids except maybe yours so you're a-ok with them. They're likely to abuse your kids too, eventually, but it'd be too late.Maybe it's flawed in the way you mention, but only if my parents are abusing kids less than all of the other parents.
@koek said:
@boomzilla said:
It's possible that your European security apparatuses have so withered away that they don't spy on other countries, but I'm sure at least the French and British do so.
The DGSE and GCHQ should be shut down as well, the fact that they run their own PRISM programs doesn't justify the NSA to run theirs.I don't know WTF you're talking about here, since PRISM is a domestic thing.
@koek said:
@boomzilla said:
I'm equally sure that we spend more effort looking at, say, Iran, than anyone in Europe.
Are you merely speculating that or is there anything you can back that up with?That's my speculation. I also speculate that 30 years ago, more of our intelligence gathering was focused on the Soviets. Why do you think we wouldn't spy more on our enemies today?
@koek said:
@boomzilla said:
Of course, since a lot of people who want to do us harm are living or at least moving through Europe, there's reason to be looking at signals in friendly countries, too.
That's a bold claim as recent events (school shootings, Boston) suggest that the people who want to do you harm are amongst you.I don't understand your reasoning here. There are potential Constitutional issues with hard core SIGINT domestically, especially for a Defense agency. No such limits apply internationally.
@koek said:
@boomzilla said:
Not to mention the bad guy governments have operations there that may be more insecure than what's going on at home.
From what we know, only the NSA has had its internal documents exposed so far. So I wouldn't bet on that, either.You are the master of reading miscomprehension (now that blakeyrat is silent, anyways). I was saying that spying on, say, an embassy in Britain is probably easier than penetrating Teheran, or whatever.
@koek said:
@boomzilla said:
In fact, the mere collection may not be an actual violation of the law
In fact, the NSA has overstepped their legal power.Ah...now you are speculating. Anyone with such ignorance of American and international law should not be so sure of himself.
@koek said:
@boomzilla said:
it's still different than "innocent until proven guilty."
Yes, but what I meant is that law enforcement only investigates criminal suspects. To investigate everyone means to consider everyone a suspect of crime.Innocence or guilt is a very different standard than probable cause, though they are related. Even then, if the argument about expectation of privacy holds up (and it probably will) then there is probably not even a probable cause threshold required.
-
@koek said:
There are potential Constitutional issues with hard core SIGINT domestically, especially for a Defense agency. No such limits apply internationally.
What about SIGQUIT,SIGALRM, SIGKILL, SIGSYS, SIGPIPE, SIGTERM, SIGILL, SIGHUP, SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2 ?????
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
SIGWEAVER?@koek said:
There are potential Constitutional issues with hard core SIGINT domestically, especially for a Defense agency. No such limits apply internationally.
What about SIGQUIT,SIGALRM, SIGKILL, SIGSYS, SIGPIPE, SIGTERM, SIGILL, SIGHUP, SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2 ?????
WTF, anyways? I thought you had disabled sigs?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
SIGWEAVER?@koek said:
There are potential Constitutional issues with hard core SIGINT domestically, especially for a Defense agency. No such limits apply internationally.
What about SIGQUIT,SIGALRM, SIGKILL, SIGSYS, SIGPIPE, SIGTERM, SIGILL, SIGHUP, SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2
?????WTF, anyways? I thought you had disabled sigs?
WHAT ABOUT SIGSEGV
-
@PJH said:
@Ben L. said:
You appear to be using a different Google than I am.@TheCPUWizard said:
Your Google appears to be broken...@Ben L. said:
That would require scrolling.@TheCPUWizard said:
@Ben L. said:
Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc.?To everyone who posted in this thread:
TL;DR
The fastest diagnosis for either ADHD or DGAS
Try using Urban Dictionary....
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@koek said:
There are potential Constitutional issues with hard core SIGINT domestically, especially for a Defense agency. No such limits apply internationally.
What about SIGQUIT,SIGALRM, SIGKILL, SIGSYS, SIGPIPE, SIGTERM, SIGILL, SIGHUP, SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2
?????These are mainly handled by other agencies / departments:
- SIGQUIT: Department of Labor
- SIGKILL: Departments of the Navy, Airforce, Army
- SIGHUP: Covered in Marine boot camp
- SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2: Used to be regulated by FDIC, Frank-Dodd handed it over to the Fed
- SIGTRAP: Mostly FBI, some other law enforcement agencies
- SIGILL: Handled by the states, except where they refused to set up Obamacare exchanges, where HHS will handle it
- SIGPIPE: DEA
-
@boomzilla said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
SIGALRM was privatized and is now handled by cable news networks.@koek said:
There are potential Constitutional issues with hard core SIGINT domestically, especially for a Defense agency. No such limits apply internationally.
What about SIGQUIT,SIGALRM, SIGKILL, SIGSYS, SIGPIPE, SIGTERM, SIGILL, SIGHUP, SIGTRAP, SIGFPE, SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2
?????These are mainly handled by other agencies / departments:
- SIGQUIT: Department of Labor
- SIGKILL: Departments of the Navy, Airforce, Army
- SIGHUP: Covered in Marine boot camp
- SIGUSR1, SIGUSR2: Used to be regulated by FDIC, Frank-Dodd handed it over to the Fed
- SIGTRAP: Mostly FBI, some other law enforcement agencies
- SIGILL: Handled by the states, except where they refused to set up Obamacare exchanges, where HHS will handle it
- SIGPIPE: DEA
-
@joe.edwards said:
SIGALRM was privatized and is now handled by cable news networks.
tag quoted for future generationsFiled under: Which are sockpuppets... For Lorne Kates.
-
@FrostCat said:
The fact that there is so much waste--while troglodytes like Nancy Pelosi claim there's nothing left to cut--is why so many people have a hard time getting worked up about this slimdown.
A little PSA for our foreign friends: The term "slimdown" is a right wing newspeak term in the same vein as "homicide bomber" and "job creator" and "freedom fries", invented and currently being pushed by Fox News. Anyone caught using this term can reasonably be assumed to be nothing more than a regurgitator of conservative propaganda incapable of independent thought, and therefore safely ignored.
-
-
@Ben L. said:
@dookdook said:
therefore safely ignored
I don't believe you.Given the Murdoch Empire's international reach, I agree with Ben.
-
@flabdablet said:
@Ben L. said:
@dookdook said:
therefore safely ignored
I don't believe you.Given the Murdoch Empire's international reach, I agree with Ben.
I suppose you do have a point...
-
-
Is Belgian politics external to the Universe then?
They've stopped the ability of the ruling party to call elections whenever they wish in the UK.
-
@method1 said:
They've stopped the ability of the ruling party to call elections whenever they wish in the UK.
Hmm - didn't realise that...
Who decides to call a general election?
After the Fixed-term Parliament Act was passed on 15 September 2011, the date of the next general election is set as 7 May 2015. The Act provides for general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every five years. There are two provisions that trigger an election other than at five year intervals:
- A motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
- A motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)
Before this Act, the duration of a Parliament was set at a maximum of five years, although many were dissolved before that. The decision to call a general election was made by the Prime Minister by asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament.
-
@dookdook said:
A little PSA for our foreign friends
Holy shit, guys! dookdook is on to us!
Honestly, I'm just waiting for the epic John Kerry gaffe that will get us all out of this mess.
-
-
@dhromed said:
Que?
John Kerry has funny hats or something?
It was something he said long after he'd lost the election and was still butthurt about people disputing various things he claimed about his service (some things he definitely lied about, others probably not, no way to tell for others). Reminiscent of Jengis Khan, if you ask me.
-
@PJH said:
@method1 said:
To be more precise: going the full 5 years was taken as a sign of weakness, holding out in the hope that the government's popularity would lift.They've stopped the ability of the ruling party to call elections whenever they wish in the UK.
Hmm - didn't realise that...
Who decides to call a general election?
After the Fixed-term Parliament Act was passed on 15 September 2011, the date of the next general election is set as 7 May 2015. The Act provides for general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every five years. There are two provisions that trigger an election other than at five year intervals:
- A motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
- A motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)
Before this Act, the duration of a Parliament was set at a maximum of five years, although many were dissolved before that. The decision to call a general election was made by the Prime Minister by asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament.
-
@FrostCat said:
Most of the federal government employees should be fired with prejudice, and start over from scratch.
We are now seeing the country reeling and jabbering from the effects of the prion disease, but it was during the time of Reagan that the country ate the monkey brains.
-
@flabdablet said:
We are now seeing the country reeling and jabbering from the effects of the prion disease, but it was during the time of Reagan that the country ate the monkey brains.
He started out all right:
There have been Congresses more irresponsible, though not many of them. There have been lazier Congresses, more vicious Congresses, and Congresses less capable of seeing forests for trees. But there has never been in a single Congress -- or, more precisely, in a single House of the Congress -- a more lethal combination of political ambition, political stupidity, and political vainglory than exists in this one...
But then, inexplicably, he stops talking about the Senate and moves to the House and his argument falls apart.
-
@boomzilla said:
But then, inexplicably, he stops talking about the Senate and moves to the House and his argument falls apart.
Your prejudices are showing.Again.
-
@dkf said:
@boomzilla said:
But then, inexplicably, he stops talking about the Senate and moves to the House and his argument falls apart.
Your prejudices are showing.Again.
How so? I just have a better grasp of the issue than the author. I don't have any particular prejudice for or against the House or Senate as institutions. Both have their purposes. But at the moment, only one is lead by a man who can't think of a reason to help a kid with cancer.
-
@boomzilla said:
why we aren't as gullible about WTF computer model predictions, then I think you need to look within.
what ?
-
@boomzilla said:
I don't have any particular prejudice for or against the House or Senate as institutions. Both have their purposes. But at the moment, only one is lead by a man who can't think of a reason to help a kid with cancer.
You talk about helping a kid with cancer like it's a no-brainer. Here is the thing: if I have a sick kid I would provide him with the best private healthcare money can buy, not shove him in a disease-ridden waiting room with hundreds of poor people waiting to see an indian doctor who is doing community services until he has his green card. In order to afford that, I need to keep some of my money, I don't want to finance the wet dream of some silverware-stealing indonesian mole.
-
@Ronald said:
@boomzilla said:
I don't have any particular prejudice for or against the House or Senate as institutions. Both have their purposes. But at the moment, only one is lead by a man who can't think of a reason to help a kid with cancer.
You talk about helping a kid with cancer like it's a no-brainer. Here is the thing: if I have a sick kid I would provide him with the best private healthcare money can buy, not shove him in a disease-ridden waiting room with hundreds of poor people waiting to see an indian doctor who is doing community services until he has his green card. In order to afford that, I need to keep some of my money, I don't want to finance the wet dream of some silverware-stealing indonesian mole.
OK. The thing in question was mostly about the NIH and clinical trials.
-
@Ronald said:
if I have a sick kid I would provide him with the best private healthcare money can buy, not shove him in a disease-ridden waiting room with hundreds of poor people waiting to see an indian doctor who is doing community services until he has his green card
Everyone wants the very best healthcare. But they also want to have money to do other stuff too; there's more to life than paying for doctors. The thing is… there's aspects of health where treating everyone works better than a full-on private system due to a number of effects (e.g., herd immunity) and let's face it, diseases aren't that picky about who they infect. (Being very poor does seem to suppress the immune system though. Immune physiology is strange stuff, but it's measurably so.)IMO, the best system keeps the public parts focused on the critical care (e.g., for infectious diseases and things that prevent people from getting any job) through a single buyer system — which stops the providers from screwing people over too much — while letting those who want to pay for elective stuff beyond a basic level of care do so. But that might be my national prejudices showing.
-
@dkf said:
@Ronald said:
if I have a sick kid I would provide him with the best private healthcare money can buy, not shove him in a disease-ridden waiting room with hundreds of poor people waiting to see an indian doctor who is doing community services until he has his green card
Everyone wants the very best healthcare. But they also want to have money to do other stuff too; there's more to life than paying for doctors. The thing is… there's aspects of health where treating everyone works better than a full-on private system due to a number of effects (e.g., herd immunity) and let's face it, diseases aren't that picky about who they infect. (Being very poor does seem to suppress the immune system though. Immune physiology is strange stuff, but it's measurably so.)IMO, the best system keeps the public parts focused on the critical care (e.g., for infectious diseases and things that prevent people from getting any job) through a single buyer system — which stops the providers from screwing people over too much — while letting those who want to pay for elective stuff beyond a basic level of care do so. But that might be my national prejudices showing.
I have nothing against socialism as long as it happens somewhere else.
Bottom line is, I don't want to pay because other people eat only at McDonalds or Taco Bell or choose to chain-smoke cancer sticks or make no effort whatsoever to stay in shape because they are too busy playing with cats and coding Go.
I'm fed up with Democrats Administrations using my money to fulfill their wet dreams. And whenever those fuckers are temporarily not allowed to stuff their face with my dollars they pull the plug on the systems they already charged me to build, such as this:
Fuck you federal people.
-
people eat only at McDonalds or Taco Bell or choose to chain-smoke cancer sticks or make no effort whatsoever to stay in shape
Would you believe that (in the proper combination) all of these things (plus a few other ingredients) cancel out, and excellent health results???
