Free Republic

Of course. It’s a democrat in office. For some reason I believe the NYT would be calling for ‘caution’, ‘discussions to lower tensions’, and ‘another round of negotiations’ were Bush still in office.

Discussions about which cruise line is better or worse are about as enlightening as similar discussions on football teams. Each has their supporters. Carnival seems to have some of the most fanatical.

The different cruise lines aren’t better or worse. Just different. Carnival targets a young party crowd. Celebrity more of a country club. Holland a more traditional older crowd.

You can get some very good deals on Carnival now. I get a email every other day touting their great deals. Other cruise line prices increasing. A cruise I booked on Royal Caribbean two months ago has gone up almost 50% since I booked.

I wouldn’t be shorting RCI any time soon. RCI owns Royal Caribbean, Celebrity, and Azamara.

Carnival Corporation & plc includes Carnival Cruise Lines, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises and Seabourn in North America; P&O Cruises (UK), and Cunard in the United Kingdom; AIDA Cruises in Germany; Costa Cruises in Southern Europe; Iberocruceros in Spain; and P&O Cruises (Australia) in Australia.

Two entirely different corporations.

FYI: Lots of cruise folks are switching to RCI from Carnival so if anything RCI should be doing quite well.

“In a statement, the Oklahoma Geological Survey said the interpretation that best fits the data is the quake “was the result of natural causes” but needs further study. The state officials cited new 3-D seismic data, a time lag between injection and the quakes , and the orientation of the faults to say it was natural not induced.”

“The seller leaves with cash, and the buyer with his new acquisition. NO “gun show” rule can prevent this.”

Remember the Lautenburg Amendment? The Senator from NJ tried to get this passed a number of years ago. This Amendment would have made it a felony to discuss such a transfer at a gun show and then make the transfer away from the gun show. Lautenburg’s amendment would also have made the gun show promoter guilty of the same felony.

Of course, the net effect would have been to make it impossible to promote a gun show. Just no way the promoter could have assumed such liability.

Funny thing was, the same transaction if initiated at a gun shop which was not a gun show would have been perfectly legal.

Real problem is, you cannot have an enforceable universal background check without gun registration.

“Well, I guess if you want to push 50% of Cruise ships out of the US and into Canadian, Mexican, and Carribean ports this would be a good start.”

One of the cruise lines attempted to use three US Flagged cruise ships in/around Hawaii. The cruise line said they were responding to requests to employ more US workers. Pretty well flopped since the crews were US union workers. Lousy service, surly crew members, etc. Had to

“What the proponents are really arguing for is cell phone provider / carrier’s best interests not the recipients.”

Absolutely spot on. The real proponents of these plans are the cell phone providers. They get more customers and everyone else pays.

So, blame the cell phone providers. They lobbied congress to get this passed.

After you reach your full retirement age, there is no limit on other earnings.

Something in between. No more than 85% of social security is taxable income. It can be less. Suggest you go to the social security website and do some research.

Liberals don’t know too much about guns. After all, they don’t ever own one. Consequently, they believe in a lot of myths about guns.

Such as. They believe that guns are not useful for personal protection. The criminal will just take it away from you after all.

And, if they can convince the hunters that their guns are safe. then the hunters won’t oppose the gun bans.

So, if you told me that you had “no intention of jumping off a bridge this afternoon”, I should ‘understand’ you plan on doing so?

I believe that there are “extraordinary circumstances” where the federal government can use lethal force against an American citizen whether that citizen is within or outside of the US.

I gave an example that no one has been able to refute until and unless you can disprove my example, my point stands. It doesn’t matter if the lethal force involves a drone or some other form of lethal force.

Also, as an aside, I believe Rand Paul to be only slightly more sane than his father. Rand Paul created a straw man argument where he made false claims about the position of the US Government.

Perhaps you might want to read this article:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/has-rand-paul-not-seen-red-dawn/

“The administration’s claim is that they can drone Americans on American soil, who do not at the time pose any imminent threat to anyone, without trial.”

Not true. The administration (Holder) said; The Obama administration believes it could technically use military force to kill an American on U.S. soil in an “extraordinary circumstance” but has “no intention of doing so,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter disclosed Tuesday.

That is not the same thing you claimed.

The Constitutional also makes the President Commander in Chief. As such, he is responsible for defending the United States.

Consider an American Citizen flying an airliner inbound towards the White House who proclaims his intent to crash that airliner into that building. Do you believe the President could order that airliner shot down?

Drones are irrelevant. The question is whether there are circumstance where the military could use lethal force against an American Citizen. And, the answer is of course there are.

Thank you for your response. There are times when a president must act regardless of the difficulties presented by the choices.

“Uh...last I heard those two incidents were cases of U.S. citizens being attacked by an enemy. Exactly which Americans would 0bama order the military to shoot in these circumstances?”

Hypothetical question. Suppose an American Citizen had been one of the 911 terrorists and suppose that citizen was flying one of those airliners towards the World Trade Center. Exactly how would you propose stopping that aircraft without using lethal force against the American Citizen flying the aircraft (let alone all the American Citizen passengers)?

“word floating around the Army areas of the Pentagon is that the Army will furlough folks 2 hours a day, four days a week and have one full 8 hour day, that way the Army will be able to show it can work every day despite the furlough.”

I can’t think of a better way to royally piss off the civilian workforce. Bad enough they’re taking an unnecessary 20% cut in pay, but now they would make them work that kind of schedule.

Besides, it’s not totally the pentagon’s decision. How the furlough is implemented must be negotiated with the federal unions.

the sequestration does not apply to all of the budget only the ‘discretionary’ parts. The vast majority of the budget is exempt, ie, social security, etc. When you divide by only those portions that the sequestration applies, you get these percentages.

From the memo: “While this reduction in funding will be difficult for us to absorb,the good news is the AOC has taken proactive steps to slow spending and plan for the cuts sincelast October.”

So the AOC is smarter than the DoD. AOC planned for the sequester and won’t have to furlough but DoD refused to plan for the sequester and now must furlough. Could we get the AOC to manage the defense department?

“It is a 13.5% cut this year.”

It has the effect of cutting some things by 13.5% but it’s not really a 13.5% cut. It’s about half that on an annual basis but since it is applied to the last six months of the fiscal year it’s effect is much larger. Back to my points about planning. This cut could have been applied over 12 months with far less impact.

“800,000 dedicated DoD civilians just got furlough notices.”

And many of those furloughs are unnecessary. Read the transcript from last Wednesday’s presser. It included the following points:
1. O&M accounts are hard hit and must maximize the savings from furloughs, ie 22 days.
2. Investment accounts are in better shape and have much more flexibility in allocating the cuts. (the investment accounts can slow spending on contracts for example.)
3. Those exempted from the furloughs will be minimized.
4. All furloughs will be of the same duration.

All of this amounts to the following. Since the O&M accounts will have to furlough the maximum possible days, the investment accounts will have to match the O&M furloughs regardless of whether they have the funds to pay their personnel. IOW, many of the furloughs are not necessary and are inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering on DoD personnel. The only explanation for this is the administration wants to maximize the pain in order to maximize the pressure on Congress to raise taxes.

Therefore, it must be concluded that this administration is manipulating this sequester to gain the most advantage over raising taxes at least in some cases. Once that point is conceded all other arguments advanced by the administration are suspect.

I’m not saying these cuts are acceptable or that they should happen. I am saying that for political reasons, this administration is making them hurt more than is necessary for it’s own political purposes.

It was a ‘failure to plan’. The fact that some members of both parties told someone that it would not happen does not justify a failure to follow the law and that law was quite explicit. Congress, not just a few members, said there would be a sequester when it passed the law.

“Do you want to Google that DugwayDuke?” If you were to follow your own advice and do a bit of googling, you might find that this sequestration was envisioned in 2011. Part of that budget deal said that sequestration would occur unless a ‘super committee’ found approximately $1T in cuts. That ‘super committee’ failed in 2011. IOW, this sequestration has been ‘baked in the cake’ for at least one if not two years. Claiming that someone told me it wouldn’t happen is no defense.

“Next, if the DoD had “planned” for it, Congress would have assumed it was not painless. Moreover, to the point, Congress itself said that Sequestration was painful - THAT WAS THE POINT of it all!”

Horsehockey. The only reason to forgo planning was the fact that such planning was inconsistent with the prospects for Obama’s re-election. It’s part of the official record that Panetta forbade planning until Obama was re-elected.

When Congress passes a law, DoD has no recourse but to follow the law. If DoD had planned for this, then there would have been time to reallocate funding between the various accounts.

Also, DoD is guilty of what you’re accusing Congress of doing, namely indefensible and unnecessary across the board cuts it is imposing upon itself.

“It cannot touch military pay, so it will have to gut Operations and Maintenance (O&M).”

All types of accounts are being cut the same amount. Only Military Pay and Wounded Warrior activities are exempt. The damage in O&M is especially hard since the political appointees failed to plan for these cuts by reducing spending rates.

Now these same political leaders are unnecessarily furloughing some defense employees.

This two things, a failure to plan and unnecessary furloughs, are designed to cause the biggest possible train wreck to maximize the pressure on Congress to raise taxes.

The issue is not that DoD is being hit harder. DoD is choosing to make this a hard hit. As the original post indicates, the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts are hardest hit. The investment accounts (RDTE&Procurement) are not hit as bad.

DoD said they were purposefully limiting those excluded from the furloughs to the minimum. Also, DoD said they were ensuring that all activities had the same furlough. IOW, this means that many of the furloughs are not strictly necessary. The Investment Accounts have sufficient funds to pay their personnel but the O&M accounts do not.

The maximum furlough is 22 days without a RIF. As they said in the original post, they can’t afford a RIF so the furlough limit is 22 days. They are doing as long a furlough as they can to save as much money as they can for the O&M accounts. And, since the O&M accounts are furloughing for 22 days, all the accounts must furlough for 22 days.

They are intentionally furloughing all DoD employees when this is not necessary. DoD is intentionally making the furloughs more extensive and impacting more employees than is necessary. Yet, they have the audacity to say that their employees are their first priority. Such BS!

This is politically motivated and politically driven to impact as many DoD personnel as hard as possible in order to pressure the GOP House as much as possible. This is sacrificing the wellbeing of DoD employees in order to advance the political agenda of the White House.

Actually, the Heritage Foundation, did take into consideration many of the factors you mentioned. The Foundation did not recommend reducing the salaries of skilled workers such as engineers but did recommend reducing the salaries of non-skilled workers. The Foundation also found that the wages of skilled workers were in-line with those in the private sector.

No, the furloughs are not designed to punish DoD civilian workers. Many workers in areas other than DoD are also being furloughed.

The Federal workforce, DoD and other departments, are being subjected to unnecessary financial pain in order to make the Republican House look badly. It is a part of Obama’s plan to retake the House, re-install Dear Speaker Nancy, and complete the transformation of this country into a liberal utopian dreamland.

“Why the furloughs”? The administration has made a political decision to impose furloughs across the entire OSD workforce regardless of whether such furloughs are required or justified.

You can’t tax imports. You can only tax those who buy imported goods. Exactly why do you wish to increase the taxes paid by your fellow citizens? Do you wish to lower their living standards?

“So, 26% of the DoD budget is off limits. The 19% that procurement takes looks like a player, but it isn’t.”

The law requires procurement accounts to take the same percentage cut as the O&S accounts. The reason the procurement accounts are not as impacted is procurement funds are three year money O&S is one year money. This means the procurement accounts can take the cuts out of 11, 12, or 13 funds. O&S has to take it out of 13 funds.

“Many of those contracts are already signed. We get into legal territory now. Some of them could possibly be broken through a pause in orders, modifications, or partial terminations. But in the end, the lawyers always win. The DoD may end up owing more, so they are holding off with doing that....for now.”

Not really. DoD is under a Continuing Resolution Authority funded at 50% of 2012. The procurement accounts have only received 50% of their funds so many of these contracts have not been ‘signed’. That doesn’t help the O&S accounts because you can’t use procurement funds for operations and maintenance. The procurement accounts can also defer further contracts to preserve funds to pay for their personnel, etc.

“They can furlough civilians (funded by O&M funds), but that only buys the DoD $5 Billion between March and September, they need another $41 Billion, just until the end of the fiscal year!”

Not all civilians are paid by O&M funding. Depends on where they work. They are paid for by the type of funds their parent agencies receive. Furloughing civilians paid for by other than O&M funds does not help the O&S problems.

“That leaves a very, very small piece of the pie to “pay” for this massive, massive cut (again, halfway through the fiscal year).”

Make up your mind. Did DoD fail to plan for this? DoD kept the funding pedal all the way to the floor even though the law said their could be a sequestration. Not the fault of the service chiefs but the political appointees. Had these appointees allowed the services to plan for this, then the impacts would have been spread over 12 not 6 months.

“All of the sequester money has to come from Operations and Maintenance”. Not correct. Only military pay and wounded warrior programs are shielded. All other programs and activities are taking the same cut. The biggest problems are in the operations and maintenance accounts but that is because the other programs may have more flexibility in how they deal with the cuts.

Much of the size of the impact is due to political decisions made by this administration not to allow the services to plan for sequestration.

The guy is a Ron Paul/vonMises/libertarian nutjob.

Not all these cuts are in DoD. Fifty percent are in discretionary non-defense. There is change in more than one pocket.

You left one option out. Defense spending is about 19% of discretionary spending but is taking 50% of the hit. Making the cut proportional to spending would help too.

One would think that a $50B cut in a $700B budget could be done in a way that doesn’t cause massive turmoil by cutting non-essential spending. But, this sequestration doesn’t work that way. The law says all elements of the budget take the same hit. Even if you could identify the non-essential spending, you can take the cut only in those elements.

The other problem is that this 10% cut equates to a 20% cut. The whole cut isn’t spread out across the whole year. It only affects the last six months.

Suppose you’re an agency with a 100 employees. You could have cut 10 at the beginning of the year, but the administration wouldn’t allow that because those cuts would have been a month before the election. Now the same agency has to cut 20 people...

Even though one could argue that federal employees are overpaid and underworked, this still means the GOP will have to justify a lot of lost jobs.

The first years cut has to be made over only six months.

The net effect of your idea would be to increase the cost of living for most Americans. When you increase those costs, you will reduce their standard of living.

The net effect of your idea would be to increase the cost of living for most Americans. When you increase those costs, you will reduce their standard of living.

Is there a particular reason you want to lower the standard of living of your fellow Americans? That’s exactly what your idea would produce.

check this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2984906/posts

“Why is that?” (a universal background check would have implement universal registration for it to be possible.)

Think about it. How do you enforce the requirement that private sellers have to participate in a background check?

The only way it will work is for the government to maintain a record of what guns you own and a record of what you bought and sold. Every state that has a universal background checks has registration.

BTW, this universal background check is the old gun show loophole. Their last attempt to close it was designed to impose such legal liabilities upon gun show promoters as to put them out of business.

“Oh, they are training their “internal security force” for that right now.”

Nothing to be worried about. Sen. Feinstein will be in charging of selecting their weaponry, no scary looking rifles, 1 round magazines, and the ammunition must meet all EPA requirements. Their internal security forces must also meet all diversity requirements including proportional representation of all races, genders, sexual orientation, and abilities. They will be fully equipped with only the finest wind powered communications your money can buy and all their transportation will be solar powered.

Protect the 'obots'? I'm protecting you. Another word of advice. “All warfare is based on deception.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Prove it in a court of law? You’d be lucky to get into court. Years and years of discovery. One petition after another. Remember, the government has lots and lots of attorneys and they are tax payer funded. Your attorneys aren’t. And, yes, you would need at least one for every one the government put on the case.

The government is a master of this type of litigation. They may recognize they would lose in court but they know they can stall until you either go bankrupt or agree to settle.

For example. During the Clinton administration, a local government bought an old motel with the intent of converting it to a half-way house for those with mental and drug related issues. The local homeowners organized and filed a petition to stop the action. The feds kept them in litigation until they dropped their case and even required them to host a “welcome to the neighborhood party” for their new neighbors. When it was pointed out that the property owners were only exercising their constitutional rights to ‘peacefully assemble and petition their government’, the government responded that the rights of the ‘homeless’ trumped these rights.

Now, just how much would it cost you to defend yourself?

From the description of your rentals, it sounds like you probably have access to a lawyer. Why don’t you ask him
(hypothetically) his advice on posting a sign that you won’t rent to anyone who voted for Obama? Ask him if you could be sued on the basis of disproportionate discrimination? Oh, and, ask him about how much you’d spend on the litigation?

One last thing. Since you’ve discussed this with others (this thread), ask him if that could be the basis for a charge of conspiracy to deny civil rights too?

Notice, the question isn’t whether you’d win but whether you could find yourself in some very messy and expensive issues.

I assumed nothing but the distribution of voters by race and gender is well known.

May I suggest a thought experiment. How long would it take for a business to get sued that posted a sign that stated that all Obama voters would be charged a 10% surcharge? Even if that business won, the cost of the lawsuit would be prohibitive.

As I said, ask an attorney.

Strongly advise you to check with an attorney before you put any of this into practice since discrimination on the basis of gender or race is prohibited.

Matter of fact, you might wish to check with the mods about keeping this post on this website since it could be construed to advocating discrimination.

Gun banners know protecting hunting was not the point of the 2nd. Their emphasis on hunting is an attempt to keep hunters from opposing their bans, ie, we want try to grab your guns if you let us take those scary guns.

Of course, today’s hunting rifle is tomorrow’s ‘sniper’ rifle and “wao needs a rifle designed to kill children at extreme distances”. Or, the shotgun that was “designed to spray a lethal swarm of lead pellets across a schoolyard”.

My doc asks about gun ownership almost every time I come in. Wants to know what I own and how many. He’s just trying to make sure he still owns more guns than I do.

You guys need to find better doctors.

The elite are fairly consistent. I remember Juan a couple of weeks ago talking to Sean Hannity. When Sean mentioned he had a CCP, Juan immediately stated that he understood why a man with Sean’s public persona would need to have arms.

Kinda like in the 90’s when one of Ted Kennedy’s body guards was thrown off a plane for carrying a weapon, the libs all chimed in that any one of Teddy’s persona should have armed body guards but no one else should have.

IOW, If you’re an elite, then you can be protected but if you’re just a commoner, then you don’t count