State of the Union

Vaclav · Feb 1, 2014

fanaskin_sl said:
You and I are different people that's for sure, just because they said it doesn't make it true, I read those things, I DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR INTERPRETATION.

There's no fucking interpretation to make on the BLS figures - they're considered the gold standard for such - they're what if you're comparing against historical figures you're going to have and all trends are going to follow theirs as well. So by the 5% theorem since the BLS figures got worse this year, that 5% figure would've factored out to 4% last year or so and GOT WORSE THIS YEAR.

But changing how the stat is factored then comparing it equally isn't kosher - it's bad science. If I had $10k life savings but then suddenly started reporting my wealth in pesos and still kept talking about it in the same context it wouldn't jive. You need to keep comparisons consistent and equal.

Maybe their 5% method will be appropriate in the long run but right now it's a new method that has NO HISTORIC DATA SO IT'S COMPLETELY POINTLESS in addition to the fact that it's terribly biased against women that care to have children because of the "tenure"/"length of service" factors which children disrupt.

There's no reason I should've seen literally over a hundred women concerned about how planning to have children would effect their career with my company (fortunately ours was awesome about women having kids - didn't even reset raise timeframes if they stayed under 3 months maternity leave), yet only ever saw three men I can recall even mention it - and those were like 5 minute conversations versus hours with the women.

fanaskin · Feb 1, 2014

I linked 5 articles that interpret the bls numbers differently than that forbes articles does, so yeah on it's face there is definitely room to interpret fucking numbers, they are numbers that try to represent reality, they aren't reality.

Also You don't take that as a natural sign of the inherent differences both psychologically and physically between men and woman? as much as societal engineers try to hamfist this notion of symmetrical equality it's false on it's face.

Also I'm no fan of the 2 parent working household, one of them should be raising the kids that isn't the state/daycare/tv.

Vaclav · Feb 1, 2014

The other articles don't use the BLS figure - they use OTHER figures that come from the BLS and then try to apply it backwards. When you do things like that you start getting arguments like "Exxon pays no taxes" when you apply it to the tax world. (And insert any number of other corporations)

And while I absolutely agree getting back to 1 working parent homes would be a better thing for kids:
a) Wages right now don't support that for most people and
b) There's no reason it should only be women that choose that route. (Sister in law is actually the worker for her family - her hubby is amazing with the kids, better than she would be by far - amazing stay at home dad)

fanaskin · Feb 1, 2014

Hoss · Feb 2, 2014

BurnemWizfyre_sl said:
Hardly anyone can figure out what the fuck you say half the time and that is because not only are you retarded you are also divorced from reality, about the only people that can follow your ignorant ass train of thought is Lumie and Tad and guess what category they fall into.

So then, you need me to use smaller words. Gotcha. Since we're getting along so well since your apology, I will consider the request.

Hoss · Feb 2, 2014

Vaclav_sl said:
Nothing the UN does trumps the Constitution EVER - that's even in the fucking articles that incorporated UN rules into anything - they're a guideline and if ignored the UN may censure a nation that ignores them, but censuring generally means "doesn't get military and financial support from the US and the EU" which we never get support from the EU, and I think we'll be fine with still supporting ourselves regardless. [And voting members, like we are often can even ignore censure - remember a censure vote was considered for Iraq? How did that turn out with how massive of a FUBAR that was?]

It's literally Glenn Beck masturbatory fiction that has no basis in reality - we're closer to the reality of Star Trek occurring than that case - it's FICTION.

I'd like to introduce you to an ancient document we call The Constitution.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You see right there that a treaty is put on the same level with the constitution as the supreme law of the land, and unlike the laws of the US, they don't have to be made pursuant to the constitution, they just have to be made under the authority of the US. To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't been tested yet, but you can definitely see how a supreme court could arrive at the conclusion that the treaty wins because it's newer.

It's got nothing to do with the toothless UN. There will be people in the US who want to enforce it and the fact that it's a treaty will give them an effective weapon.

Vaclav_sl said:
The initial drafts that went through the UN but never passed were started under direction of John Bolton back during George HW Bush as a response to Reagan's requests that arms sales be more restricted and controlled (shortly after Iran-Contra started becoming a thing is when this draft started - likely as an attempt to spin "Hey, we want guns out of bad hands" back into their favor) - it however never gained full traction back then and got put on the back burner after failing during Clinton's timeframe. And nuke disarmament started shortly before this, might have been part of the same drafting timeframe even, but this saw the light of day shortly after before it failed. I wouldn't be surprised with their timing if it wasn't planned to be part of the same and got spun off on it's own though.

Once Bolton became ambassador himself a similar bill started up again that he put his weight behind the new bill and got it adjusted to something remarkably similar to the old bill. The bill is about controlling arms sales to dissident nations and otherwise influencing international issues with arms sales to "unkind nations". Any other interpretations are nonsensical fantasy created by twisting the words into something that they're not. Watching the UN discussion on it if you care to (which you no doubt won't - frankly I couldn't stomach most of it and it's HOURS of discussion) actually hear how it's to be used and applied. [PS - Even the nations that follow the UN in lockstep that are gun friendly (many voting nations still are in fact) and don't have a "gun rights" part to their laws would telegraph it very far in advance if it ever happened - not that it's ever going to.

You are literally just making shit up right now. The ATT began in 1995 when a nobel laureate talked a bunch of other nobel laureates into proposing an international agreement regulating arms trade. a couple years later, they went to the UN with it. When bolton became our ambassador in 2005, one of the first things he did was announce to the general assembly that the US was withdrawing its support for the ATT, which pretty much killed it until 0 was elected.

Also, forget the hearings, try reading the bill. It doesn't do what you just said. It creates an international registry and can only prevent sale of arms to citizens, not governments. Right there at the top of the document it says this treaty does not trump the UN principal that states (countries) are allowed to defend themselves.

Once again, it's possible a portion of what you're talking came from some nuclear disarmament treaty from the 80's, but what you're saying isn't remotely close to being true for the ATT.

Vaclav · Feb 2, 2014

US stance on UN PROVISIONS/SANCTIONS are that they're not Treaties. Period. (Case in point: Iraq... various sanctions... etc)

And yes, the on ATT itself, the previous concept looked almost identical but was not named the same. And yes, it's to prevent arms from being sold to INDIVIDUALS in nations a la Iran-Contra, thus why I MENTIONED FUCKING IRAN-CONTRA. Also why it died down alot until recent issues with insurgents in various nations (hint: insurgents are individuals, not governments).

And no, Bolton has been in support of similar concepts in the past he's gone against them recently now that he's ramping up for Presidential consideration in 2016 - but he was in talks for disarming insurgents from day one of entering the Ambassadorship - which is what the ATT DOES. He's just gone against it publicly once the NRA and GlennBeckfansite02.org started flaming on about it not. He's posturing for potential political future, feeding the base, it's not his true view on it, quite clearly.

Shit, you can see dozens of interviews with him about the importance of regulating how governments are able to sell arms to insurgent and terrorist sects which is what the ATT is actually about, and he used to acknowledge that before the Beck-KoolAidDrinkers.org people got wind of Beck writing his fanfiction about it.

Note: Until researching for this post didn't realize he was considered a possible for 2016 - excited to hear this even with his flip-flop on this specific topic - I'm a Bolton fan... at least for THIS Bolton. Glad to see its not impossible for Republicans to get my Pres vote now that it looks like the fat man is out of possible range.

And note here's the UN Provision it was to be attached to before it was removed because it was a little too subject to debate at the time that -United Nations Mercenary Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia- the Wiki is very light on details, but that's the one that was to screw merc armies AND to screw insurgent/merc arming but was scaled back to only the former. (And note the Chemical Weapons one in 1984 or so predated it - and of course also note, we've got no trouble ignoring THIS "treaty" as well...)

Hoss · Feb 2, 2014

We're talking about a treaty, dipshit. Not a UN provision or sanction. Do you know the difference? The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is, surprisingly, a treaty. It's been signed by the executive, so all it needs now to take effect in the US is a 2/3 vote in the senate. There's no expiration for the treaty, so that 2/3 vote can happen a hundred years down the road unless we get a commander in chief to un-sign it first.

Vaclav · Feb 2, 2014

Hoss_sl said:
We're talking about a treaty, dipshit. Not a UN provision or sanction. Do you know the difference? The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is, surprisingly, a treaty. It's been signed by the executive, so all it needs now to take effect in the US is a 2/3 vote in the senate. There's no expiration for the treaty, so that 2/3 vote can happen a hundred years down the road unless we get a commander in chief to un-sign it first.

Protip: Any action that the UN takes no matter the final name is a "Provision" with the exception of "Sanctions", smartass. Or in other words, we don't consider anything from the UN to be a Treaty.

Only stuff we negotiate directly is treated as a Treaty under the US stance on the matter.

Vaclav · Feb 2, 2014

Christ just read snopes -http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

Burnem Wizfyre · Feb 2, 2014

Hoss_sl said:
So then, you need me to use smaller words. Gotcha. Since we're getting along so well since your apology, I will consider the request.

Yet another example of you being completely divorced from reality, I would almost take pity on you if you weren't so fucking content with being a complete retard. You and Merlin are long lost brothers or some shit.

Picasso3 · Feb 2, 2014

Someone start a chain letter stating hoss is a retard so snopes will find out if it's true or not

Hoss · Feb 3, 2014

Vaclav_sl said:
Christ just read snopes -http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

lol. Are you illiterate? That article is about a chain email that is not saying the same things I said, AND just to sweeten the pot, in the explanation, affirmed what I've been saying. The only thing it added was that 50 nations had to ratify it as well. It conveniently skirted the issue of what happens once it's been ratified by the US and 49 other member nations.

Snopes is shameless sometimes.

Tuco · Feb 3, 2014

Hoss what are you arguing here?

Vaclav · Feb 3, 2014

Hoss_sl said:
lol. Are you illiterate? That article is about a chain email that is not saying the same things I said, AND just to sweeten the pot, in the explanation, affirmed what I've been saying. The only thing it added was that 50 nations had to ratify it as well. It conveniently skirted the issue of what happens once it's been ratified by the US and 49 other member nations.

Snopes is shameless sometimes.

It asserts every retarded thing you said... clearly I'm the illiterate one.

Breakdown every comment you have into bullet points and I'll point out where they are in a page line count at 1080p if you'd like me to.

Is there a prize out there for biggest idiot in a political forum or something? Because you're on track for it if so.

PS - That "chain email" makes the same "They can take our guns" claim that you claim it's going to be used for as it's primary focus, just like the primary focus of your mentally defective nonsense that came straight out of Beck's rectum.

Hoss · Feb 3, 2014

Tuco_sl said:
Hoss what are you arguing here?

There's no sense in re-stating it when I can just re-quote it.

Hoss_sl said:
sounds like you have no clue what I think it does. I think it trumps the constitution if its ratified by the senate and once it's ratified, it can be amended without senate approval, even without the US agreeing to the amendment. If you paid attention to the people who championed this treaty (IANSA), you'd see why we should be worried. Also, I think that it could sit for 100 years before we get a senate that will ratify it and it would still be in full effect. I'm not sure if there's a way for us to un sign it (other than pulling out of the UN completely, which would tickle me pink)

Note, since I wrote this, I've read that a treaty can be 'un-signed' by the president. It might need to be done before it's ratified by the senate (not sure about that). So we've got that going for us. Which is good. That makes me a lot less worried about the ATT. I'm sure we'll get a conservative president before the liberals get a 2/3 majority in the senate. The only thing I worry about is that we all forget about the ATT by the time a president comes along that might un-sign it.

So everything beyond that was just me pointing out that vaclav is a dumbass and is making up his own nonsensical facts. I mean, seriously? Bolton supporting the ATT? Not unless we're talking about different Boltons.

Hoss_sl said:
I'd like to introduce you to an ancient document we call The Constitution.

You see right there that a treaty is put on the same level with the constitution as the supreme law of the land, and unlike the laws of the US, they don't have to be made pursuant to the constitution, they just have to be made under the authority of the US. To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't been tested yet, but you can definitely see how a supreme court could arrive at the conclusion that the treaty wins because it's newer.

It's got nothing to do with the toothless UN. There will be people in the US who want to enforce it and the fact that it's a treaty will give them an effective weapon.

You are literally just making shit up right now. The ATT began in 1995 when a nobel laureate talked a bunch of other nobel laureates into proposing an international agreement regulating arms trade. a couple years later, they went to the UN with it. When bolton became our ambassador in 2005, one of the first things he did was announce to the general assembly that the US was withdrawing its support for the ATT, which pretty much killed it until 0 was elected.

Also, forget the hearings, try reading the bill. It doesn't do what you just said. It creates an international registry and can only prevent sale of arms to citizens, not governments. Right there at the top of the document it says this treaty does not trump the UN principal that states (countries) are allowed to defend themselves.

Once again, it's possible a portion of what you're talking came from some nuclear disarmament treaty from the 80's, but what you're saying isn't remotely close to being true for the ATT.

Tuco · Feb 3, 2014

Hoss_sl said:
There's no sense in re-stating it when I can just re-quote it.

Note, since I wrote this, I've read that a treaty can be 'un-signed' by the president. It might need to be done before it's ratified by the senate (not sure about that). So we've got that going for us. Which is good. That makes me a lot less worried about the ATT. I'm sure we'll get a conservative president before the liberals get a 2/3 majority in the senate. The only thing I worry about is that we all forget about the ATT by the time a president comes along that might un-sign it.

So everything beyond that was just me pointing out that vaclav is a dumbass and is making up his own nonsensical facts. I mean, seriously? Bolton supporting the ATT? Not unless we're talking about different Boltons.

What do you think the ATT will prevent US citizens from doing?

Vaclav · Feb 4, 2014

Did he support the ATT directly? No. But he's supported the exact same shit in the past - learn to read stuff that's been around in the age of papers and such. He's got a 25+ year political history and you're talking about the past 2 years when you talk about him being annoyed by this.

He was part of the think tank behind every disarmament resolution/treaty that occurred on the UN level from the mid 80's until 2005 or so until he took a break a bit - his tune has been slightly different since returning where he's starting taking marching orders directly from the NRA and directly contradicting his own statements on the strength of treaty enforcement. Period.

In fact it mirrors Newt Gingrich and the ACA pretty damn well - both supported something identical 20 years ago and now think it's the worst thing ever thinking people are shortviewed when it comes to politics. Gingrich on Health Care, Bolton on Arms Trafficking. (Additionally note, the Mormon Ambassador to China who ran the Republican Primaries two years ago blanking on his name at the moment (I think he was his undersecretary at the time?) - was also involved to a degree - although he's not reversed his support, and in fact was the mention that made me go back through old papers to verify that Bolton had been part of putting together the first try on it...)

Hoss · Feb 4, 2014

Tuco_sl said:
What do you think the ATT will prevent US citizens from doing?

The problem is what it will allow the government to do. As I said, there are plenty of people with power in this country who would like pick up all of our guns tomorrow if they could. Do you doubt that? Because if you do then we need to stop right now and get you sorted out. This will give them a weapon to use to start that process. Right now, all they'd be able to do with the treaty is start a national gun registration, and that's bad enough. But my biggest problem with it is that it can be amended after we become signatories, and the senate will not have to consent again. Look at the people who pushed the ATT and their goals and you'll know they're not really interested in disarming somalian pirates.

Oh and on top of all that, it could very well make it impossible for us to get imports from signatory countries if we don't comply with the registration requirements (even if we never ratify it).

Vaclav · Feb 4, 2014

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...g-between-cou/

No..no...no...no...no... you illiterate, toothless fuck.

State of the Union

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Well known agitator

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Well known agitator

Make America's Team Great Again

Make America's Team Great Again

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Make America's Team Great Again

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Log Wizard

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Make America's Team Great Again

I got Tuco'd!

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Make America's Team Great Again

I got Tuco'd!

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Make America's Team Great Again

Bronze Baronet of the Realm