Octopus Overlords

Carpet_pissr wrote:What the hell is California, as a state, selling to the federal government?

Weed.

Rip wrote:That knife cuts both ways.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12 ... dget-bill/

A final effort by Senate Republicans to halt cuts to pensions of military retirees failed late Tuesday, after Democrats blocked an amendment to the controversial budget bill.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash.,who brokered the budget deal with House counterpart Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., argued the GOP effort was really an attempt to kill the entire bill.

Seeing as both houses of Congress are GOP-controlled, why was this in the budget bill in the first place?

Oh, and Congressional commission releases new plan to overhaul military pay and retirement

PDF Report

CHAIRMAN
The Honorable Alphonso Maldon, Jr. [Former Asst. SecDef]

COMMISSIONERS
The Honorable Larry L. Pressler [I-SD, former R]
The Honorable Stephen E. Buyer [R-IN]
The Honorable Dov S. Zakheim [Former Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller); GWB]
Mr. Michael R. Higgins [Staff Member of the House Committee on Armed Services]
General Peter W. Chiarelli, U.S. Army, Retired
Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., U.S. Navy, Retired
The Honorable J. Robert (Bob) Kerrey [D-NB]
The Honorable Christopher P. Carney [D-PA]

Isgrimnur wrote:

Rip wrote:That knife cuts both ways.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12 ... dget-bill/

A final effort by Senate Republicans to halt cuts to pensions of military retirees failed late Tuesday, after Democrats blocked an amendment to the controversial budget bill.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash.,who brokered the budget deal with House counterpart Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., argued the GOP effort was really an attempt to kill the entire bill.

Seeing as both houses of Congress are GOP-controlled, why was this in the budget bill in the first place?

Battle over the immigration voting block and veto avoidance I guess. You should ask some of them, most of them say one thing and do another which is why the "tea party" and "outsiders" are taking over much of the party.

Perfect example of why much of the GOP establishment is on the ropes and the firebrand guys are on the rise.

ImLawBoy wrote:I don't know why you folks don't keep hammering him on his original unsupportable points. You let him go off on completely unrelated topics, which is his standard MO.

Because it's like shoveling shit into the tide. He doesn't care. Being correct is in no way important to Rip. Saying stupid and easily disproved things in order to get people to react is the only thing that is important to Rip. Trying to show him that what he is saying is stupid and easily disproved has no impact on him. He'll just move on to the next dumb and useless point that pops into his head.

There are times when the proper course of action is to counter speech with speech. This isn't one of them. He doesn't care. And if he doesn't care about the dumb shit that comes out of his mouth, why should any of us?

RunningMn9 wrote: There are times when the proper course of action is to counter speech with speech. This isn't one of them. He doesn't care. And if he doesn't care about the dumb shit that comes out of his mouth, why should any of us?

I'll repeat, what else am I gonna do?

New posts in the gaming forums come in at about, say, 20 a day at a wild guess. That's about 5 minutes of reading, and if I'm not personally interested in the game, then what?

Sure, sure, I could, you know, work or something, but I do that too. I don't have full access to the internet, with gaming specifically outlawed, so I don't have anywhere else to go either.

There is no question I could find more productive things to do, but I'm not sure I could find more entertaining things to do.

GreenGoo wrote:I'll repeat, what else am I gonna do?

I cannot fathom that your life is that devoid of possibilities that senselessly arguing with Rip is an acceptable activity.

In his defense, he's not another Ecologic (or, at times, MSDuncan). I don't get a sense of actual hatred for anyone who disagrees with him like I did with that guy. I think Rip trolls, yes. But not in a really angry and/or insulting manner. But I get the feeling I could have a beer with Rip (and those who also will sometimes troll "casually"...like myself and many others) if we met up in real life. Heck, I'm betting we'd laugh about it. Sure, we'd probably still argue...but he's not someone I think would ever take it too far in real life.

I don't know, that's just how I view Rip, I guess...although we have the added benefit of being able to easily find instances of his contradicting himself when he does go on a tirade over something.

hepcat wrote:In his defense, he's not another Ecologic (or, at times, MSDuncan).

In my opinion, he is far worse. Certainly he's worse than msduncan. At least msduncan is genuine in his beliefs. Maybe I'm too old for this shit, but I can't abide the complete lack of authenticity with Rip's bullshit.

hepcat wrote:In his defense, he's not another Ecologic... I don't get a sense of actual hatred for anyone who disagrees with him like I did with that guy.

I agree. And I wish everything Rmn9 doesn't agree with wouldn't be the end of the world for him. You would think Rip killed his dog or something, he comes on so strong. Rmn9's rhetoric is strong, I'll give him that.

And I say that having recently had my own little flare up over something Rip had written.

edit: For the record I had singled Rmn9 out prior to his most recent post above mine.

RunningMn9 wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I'll repeat, what else am I gonna do?

I cannot fathom that your life is that devoid of possibilities that senselessly arguing with Rip is an acceptable activity.

I wish I could say otherwise.

My life, it ain't pretty.

But actually I just like participating on the forums and that means interacting with Rip on occasion.

RunningMn9 wrote:

hepcat wrote:In his defense, he's not another Ecologic (or, at times, MSDuncan).

In my opinion, he is far worse. Certainly he's worse than msduncan. At least msduncan is genuine in his beliefs. Maybe I'm too old for this shit, but I can't abide the complete lack of authenticity with Rip's bullshit.

It's a diversion that asks me to examine my own thoughts until it's not. My problem is that I am not prescient enough to know when that "it's not" point will hit me until I'm already annoyed. And yeah, I'm too to old to allow message boards annoy me.

It's also an exercise in patience. I'm not ready to be yelling at clouds just yet.

We cannot control how other people act, only ourselves.

RM9 is just upset that The Treatment™ is ineffective against me.

Rip wrote:RM9 is just upset that The Treatment™ is ineffective against me.

It doesn't work on rutabagas either.

Rip wrote:RM9 is just upset that The Treatment™ is ineffective against me.

I think it's cute you have a pet name for schools.

Rip wrote:
A provision in the already House-passed bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.

The House bill? The House that is completely controlled by the Republicans?

EDIT - Never mind, beaten by Issy as usual.

hepcat wrote:(and those who also will sometimes troll "casually"...like myself and many others) if we met up in real life.

I gave you a chance and what did you do?

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote:
A provision in the already House-passed bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.

The House bill? The House that is completely controlled by the Republicans?

EDIT - Never mind, beaten by Issy as usual.

Yea, but that isn't what they wanted to do.

A final effort by Senate Republicans to halt cuts to pensions of military retirees failed late Tuesday, after Democrats blocked an amendment to the controversial budget bill.

Sessions wanted to instead eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed.

He and fellow senators argued the bill unfairly sticks veterans and other military retirees with the cost of new spending.

“It’s not correct, and it should not happen,” Sessions said on the floor.

Further more they didn't really want to do that BUT.

The two-year budget deal would ease for two years some of the harshest cuts to agency budgets required under automatic spending curbs commonly known as sequestration. It would replace $45 billion in scheduled cuts for the 2014 budget year already underway, easing about half of the scheduled cuts.

In the end the Republicans didn't have the balls to shut it down to get what they wanted so they tried to go with compromise, and of course you guys show exactly why that is a futile effort.

Which is why many people myself included are happy to see them go and be replaced by people who will fight the fight rather than give in to the unwinnable quagmire that is compromise within an issue.

This goes on to support my feeling that compromising within issues is useless. I would rather win and issue or two and take a loss on some others. It makes it much easier to count wins and losses without the usual case of both parties claiming victories and suggesting the other failed or caused failure.

The way they do it now it ends up just like healthcare. If it works the Democrats take credit. If it doesn't they blame the failure on having to compromise with Republicans. The Republicans would have been better off to have just let them do it however they wanted and then the responsible party for the success/failure would be obvious. Instead it is just another endless argument.

At least when you give the other guy an issue when it happens all the success or failure is easy to assign to the appropriate people.

I'm sick of the always claim the wins and blame failures on the other party method which has become standard protocol.

Yes, compromise is highly overrated.

Under Rip logic as seen in Obamacare, we should celebrate that the Republicans are in control and get all the blame because they could really just cram down whatever they want on President Obama if they just had the guts. But, of course, that would be totally unfair snd oppressive tyranny so the Democrats should sue for years to repeal it.

It's better than compromise because we have an easy scorecard for loyalty, victory and blame. You know, like college football.

Zarathud wrote:It's better than compromise because we have an easy scorecard for loyalty, victory and blame. You know, like college football.

And both sides can blame it on the guys in black and white.

Jaymann wrote:Yes, compromise is highly overrated.

Not compromise, just that type of compromise.

I'm all for compromise that is give issue a, b, and c for issue d, e , and f. That approach still allow accountability. When issue c and f are huge successes we know who to credit. If they fail we know who to hold accountable. As it is everyone thinks they deserve credit and no one is ever held accountable.

When the wife wants ham and beans while I want spaghetti and meatballs we don't compromise by spaghetti and ham today and beans and meatballs tomorrow.

The way they are doing it leads to poorly executed half-assed attempts at actually handling problems.

You know too many cooks ruining the soup and all.

Or as I once heard said:
"Too many hands in the fire."

Rip wrote:When the wife wants ham and beans while I want spaghetti and meatballs we don't compromise by spaghetti and ham today and beans and meatballs tomorrow.

Well, damn dude - maybe you should try it.

Rip wrote:

Jaymann wrote:Yes, compromise is highly overrated.

Not compromise, just that type of compromise.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:

Jaymann wrote:Yes, compromise is highly overrated.

Not compromise, just that type of compromise.

Call it whatever you like Quid Pro Quo.

I give something I expect something back.

Donald Trump claims taking of property for private development is “not taking property”

So eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it’s a wonderful thing, I’ll be honest with you. And remember, you’re not taking property, you know, the way you asked the question, the way other people—you’re paying a fortune for that property. Those people can move two blocks away into a much nicer house.

The phrasing's not great, but all he's doing here is making clear that eminent domain does not involve not taking property *without compensation* - i.e. not taking it for free.

True, but I'd argue that forcibly buying something below fair real world market value is taking it. You're certainly taking part of it for free at the very least.

LawBeefaroni wrote:True, but I'd argue that forcibly buying something below fair real world market value is taking it. You're certainly taking part of it for free at the very least.

Right, but that gets back to the phrasing. He sort of stops and regroups after the "not taking property", so it's misleading to say that he is saying that it's "not taking property" full stop.

Now stop making me defend Trump.

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:True, but I'd argue that forcibly buying something below fair real world market value is taking it. You're certainly taking part of it for free at the very least.

Right, but that gets back to the phrasing. He sort of stops and regroups after the "not taking property", so it's misleading to say that he is saying that it's "not taking property" full stop.

Now stop making me defend Trump.

I don't know, he like - his quotes are always, so, you know, convoluted. I guess he might be saying, and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here, not that there's any doubt, let me tell you, he's maybe saying, if you ask me, and you did ask me, maybe indirectly, that well, you just can't steal someone's house. But you can sure take it from them. With a little money.

Stop being such losers with your inability to understand what will make America Great Again: the forcible transfer of private property from one owner to another as dictated under eminent domain laws.

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:True, but I'd argue that forcibly buying something below fair real world market value is taking it. You're certainly taking part of it for free at the very least.

Right, but that gets back to the phrasing. He sort of stops and regroups after the "not taking property", so it's misleading to say that he is saying that it's "not taking property" full stop.

Now stop making me defend Trump.

After all, it isn't like The Donald would attempt to abuse eminent domain to further his business interests, amirite?

YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO MOVE WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE. IF YOU REMAIN IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THAT TIME, CRDA MAY BE ABLE TO HAVE YOU AND YOUR BELONGINGS REMOVED BY THE SHERIFF.

Vera Coking received this letter telling her to move out of the house she has lived in for 36 years. So did Joseph and Gilda Ann Rutigliano, who have operated a small motel in Atlantic City for over 30 years, Vincent Sabatini, who has run his Italian restaurant for the last 32 years, and Peter Banin, who had just purchased his small gold shop. Neighboring casino/hotels wanted their property, and the New Jersey Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) agreed to condemn the properties and give it to the casinos. Trump Plaza will use Vera Coking's house as a limousine waiting area; the Sabatini restaurant and the Banin shop will become a grassy area in front of the casino. The Rutigliano's motel will become a parking lot for the Tropicana Hotel across the street.

Max Peck wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:True, but I'd argue that forcibly buying something below fair real world market value is taking it. You're certainly taking part of it for free at the very least.

Right, but that gets back to the phrasing. He sort of stops and regroups after the "not taking property", so it's misleading to say that he is saying that it's "not taking property" full stop.

Now stop making me defend Trump.

After all, it isn't like The Donald would attempt to abuse eminent domain to further his business interests, amirite?

YOU MAY BE REQUIRED TO MOVE WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE. IF YOU REMAIN IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AFTER THAT TIME, CRDA MAY BE ABLE TO HAVE YOU AND YOUR BELONGINGS REMOVED BY THE SHERIFF.

Vera Coking received this letter telling her to move out of the house she has lived in for 36 years. So did Joseph and Gilda Ann Rutigliano, who have operated a small motel in Atlantic City for over 30 years, Vincent Sabatini, who has run his Italian restaurant for the last 32 years, and Peter Banin, who had just purchased his small gold shop. Neighboring casino/hotels wanted their property, and the New Jersey Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) agreed to condemn the properties and give it to the casinos. Trump Plaza will use Vera Coking's house as a limousine waiting area; the Sabatini restaurant and the Banin shop will become a grassy area in front of the casino. The Rutigliano's motel will become a parking lot for the Tropicana Hotel across the street.

Well, sure, of course he abuses eminent domain. I was just clarifying Trump's point, not saying that he's right.

My favorite eminent domain boondoggle was when the city of Lake Tahoe took over a beachfront property to create a "bird sanctuary." Five years later they sold it to a developer.

Did the ensuing lawsuit take another decade?

Well the birds tried to put together a class action, but were unable to get certified.

Who wants to make some serious scratch?

Bring me the head of Clowny McFuckstick