April Banter

[psuhoffman]

 

14 minutes ago, North Balti Zen said:

I'm not and I wasn't. 

I know you aren't trolling.  Let me be clear I don't have a problem with you being frustrated.  And I have no problem with your posts saying you are frustrated.  You weren't one of the ones that was clogging up the discussion threads with constant whining all winter long.  I said this winter was frustrating.  I was frustrated.  But I guess I expected it to be frustrating so then when it was I didn't see how saying that over and over again was going to make it any better.  I was just adding perspective that regardless of how frustrating it was this actually ended up being about as good as we could have hoped for given the nina.  Most nina's are worse then this year was...see last year.  So I agree it was frustrating...I was just adding a different point of view.

But you keep saying some iteration of "can't we just let people be frustrated" and there are 2 things I am confused wrt that.   

1. No one can stop you or anyone else from being frustrated.  The real issues seems to be that you want others NOT to respond or offer any counter points.  Sorry that isn't how this works. This is a discussion thread not a sound off.  If someone wants to be frustrated and post about it that is totally fine, but if I want to reply to that post with my own thoughts on that subject that is fine too.  Its not a one way communication.  Anyone is free to respond in whatever way they feel to my posts.  The difference is I don't care if someone disagrees with me or offers a counter point to my posts.  I might reply back and get into it but I don't mind the back and forth.  Its not fair to say "let them say whatever they want and don't reply" which is kind of essentially what you imply.  Saying I disagree with something is NOT censoring it and its not trying to stop them from feeling that way its just offering my opinion.  SO I don't understand what the problem is.   If I am wrong about what you are saying I apologize but that seemed to be how it came off.  Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. 

2.  There was an attempt by myself and a few others to tone down the constant complaining and useless whining in the discussion threads earlier this winter.  (gave up on that).  This has NOTHING to do with you btw.  You weren't the one mucking up that thread.  But the problem was that there were 20 complaints of "its not snowing this sucks" for every substantive post about the pattern.  It got to the point where the thread was becoming garbage and just another panic room or banter thread.  The issue is we already have a banter and panic thread so what good is it to turn the weather discussion threads into another one of those?  I honestly thought it would be best and EVERYONE could get what they want if we simply made sure to post in the right locations.  Put the whining about the weather in panic or banter and keep legit discussion about the weather in the discussion threads.  But then it turned into a mess because some were using the gray area and examples of light hearted fun that goes on in the threads to justify saying anything and turning it into a mess.  There were a few who honestly said they didn't want to post their garbage in the panic room because they wanted and audience...essentially they admitted they wanted to be as annoying as possible.  Think about that one...  But we gave up on it.  I am not big into censorship so when there was pushback I just let it go.  Maybe next year we can figure out a better way.  Whatever.  But if they are allowed to post their complaints...then I am damn sure allowed to post my complaints about their complaints right?  It works both ways.  That's my POV.  Again if you disagree you are free and I am fine with you posting how I am wrong.  That's how this is supposed to work. 

Finally this is just a discussion.  Hopefully we can have it without it getting nasty.  I was not involved in the name calling and bickering so lets leave that out of our discussion.  We obviously have very divergent views on this, but that's ok, and doesn't have to mean it gets hostile. 

[mappy]

to be fair, if anyone is bitching about the winter in banter, or the panic thread, i don't see why it needs to be discussed, or replied upon. it is banter or in the panic thread. if it is being said in an actual discussion thread, then i can see why the need to discuss it is necessary.

if someone just wants to post "this winter sucks, **** it" then i guess i don't see why it needs to be broken down by others. 

just my two cents. 

[AfewUniversesBelowNormal]

man... energies on the planet are really low right now. no offense guys

[Mrs.J]

Lovin' the end of the week forecast.

[psuhoffman]

58 minutes ago, mappy said:

to be fair, if anyone is bitching about the winter in banter, or the panic thread, i don't see why it needs to be discussed, or replied upon. it is banter or in the panic thread. if it is being said in an actual discussion thread, then i can see why the need to discuss it is necessary.

if someone just wants to post "this winter sucks, **** it" then i guess i don't see why it needs to be broken down by others. 

just my two cents. 

It was more complicated then that.  I was responding to the posts in the discussion thread.  Then my responses there were taken over here in a discussion about the discussion.  In general I have not said anything to people making general comments like that in banter or panic...the only reason I made a reply the other day was because he directed the comment at me and named me in the post in reference to my comments in the discussion threads.  In essence it was brought into banter but started in the storm discussion threads.  Otherwise I wouldn't bother to reply to a general complaint in banter.  

[mappy]

14 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It was more complicated then that.  I was responding to the posts in the discussion thread.  Then my responses there were taken over here in a discussion about the discussion.  In general I have not said anything to people making general comments like that in banter or panic...the only reason I made a reply the other day was because he directed the comment at me and named me in the post in reference to my comments in the discussion threads.  In essence it was brought into banter but started in the storm discussion threads.  Otherwise I wouldn't bother to reply to a general complaint in banter.  

I hear you. 

[psuhoffman]

The tax discussion was interesting.  I know I'm weird in that I might be the only one who doesn't mind taxes.  I mean yea obviously if all else was equal I would rather keep the money.  But when I think about cutting taxes usually the opportunity cost isn't worth it to me.  When I look at some low tax areas...and consider how they typically struggle to offer good public services (see Oklahoma right now) then compare how much I would save personally if my tax rate were as low as those places...its not worth it.  I used an online tax calculator in a debate about this a couple years ago and figured that I would keep about $1,700 more living in a low tax State/Locality.  But what would that really do for me.  That isn't near enough for me to put my children in a private school because my public schools suck.  It wouldn't be enough to live in a private gated community because the local police force is under funded.  It wouldn't be enough to get a helicopter to avoid roads and public transportation because they both suck.  I would rather pay the 1700 and have those things that I can't afford to provide myself.  

Sometime's I do disagree with HOW the money is being spent and wasted in some cases.  But then my focus is on making the government more accountable and to do a better job of allocating resources not to cut resources.  I admit I am very fortunate in my personal situation.  I am thankful for everything that I have.  I will be ok personally in whatever direction this society decides to take fiscally.  However, I would rather have a little less money personally and live somewhere with good schools, roads, public transportation, services, and infrastructure and not surrounded by poverty...then have more money and be surrounded by a sh!t hole.  Yea it was nice to suddenly keep more of my paychecks and have some additional opportunities with investments when the recent tax cuts went into effect but at what cost?  If it ends up damaging the nations ability to have quality public services, take care of our obligations to the elderly, provide quality healthcare to everything....among other things...I would rather not have the money.  But I admit I am weird in that way.

I do however, have issues with the way some places collect taxes.  PA drove me nuts when I lived there with all their local taxes.  It wasn't the amount, I was actually paying less then in MD, but they collect everything locally through a ton of stupid little taxes that come at random times during the year instead of just taking it all from state tax and property taxes due at once.  That was so annoying.  I would rather they just collect it in one lump sum then take it on themselves to divide it up as it needs to be like they do in MD.  Sending me 13 random bills for different amounts throughout the year  that wasn't deducted from my pay was annoying.   

[Fozz]

15 hours ago, psuhoffman said:

What part of the constitution?  How would banning cars be any different then when they arbitrarily decide to ban other items for public good?

it would have to be worded carefully to avoid a due process violation but it could be done.  It's been done before just not with anything as drastically widespread as cars.  But legally there is no difference.

Again im not in favor just not sure about the constitutional  issue.  

I think the government has overstepped its constitutional limits in a lot of ways over the years. For example, back when alcohol was banned, we needed a constitutional amendment for prohibition to happen on a nationwide level. But now, we have a War on Drugs which I don't believe is constitutional, not to mention it's horrible for the rights of so many innocent people (not just drug users). I don't know which part of the Constitution allows the federal government to ban the private ownership of vehicles, let alone even drugs. Maybe you could stretch the Interstate commerce clause to the extreme, but I think that would be very sketchy.

[psuhoffman]

10 minutes ago, Fozz said:

I think the government has overstepped its constitutional limits in a lot of ways over the years. For example, back when alcohol was banned, we needed a constitutional amendment for prohibition to happen on a nationwide level. But now, we have a War on Drugs which I don't believe is constitutional, not to mention it's horrible for the rights of so many innocent people (not just drug users). I don't know which part of the Constitution allows the federal government to ban the private ownership of vehicles, let alone even drugs.

Commerce clause. That has been interpreted liberally enough by the Supreme Court as to allow it to include civil rights legislation and to decide what items should not be legally sold due to public safety or health. 

Not sure I even agree but the Supreme Court was set up as the arbiter of these things. None of it is definitive. It's a living document that needs to be interpreted and so the Supreme Courts interpretation is the final say. I'm just playing by their rules. Agree or disagree. I do understand the originalist interpretation of the constitution but the courts have rejected that opinion and for good reason. Without a more liberal interpretation we would have serious issues regarding technology and other areas where policy must change to meet changing reality. We would need constant amendments or to rewrite it. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been stretched too far either. But by the current interpretation of the commerce clause I do think such a law wouldn't be a violation given they either compensate for the loss of property value or grandfather in already owned vehicles. 

[showmethesnow]

21 minutes ago, Fozz said:

I think the government has overstepped its constitutional limits in a lot of ways over the years. For example, back when alcohol was banned, we needed a constitutional amendment for prohibition to happen on a nationwide level. But now, we have a War on Drugs which I don't believe is constitutional, not to mention it's horrible for the rights of so many innocent people (not just drug users). I don't know which part of the Constitution allows the federal government to ban the private ownership of vehicles, let alone even drugs. Maybe you could stretch the Interstate commerce clause to the extreme, but I think that would be very sketchy.

Have to agree with you. The biggest problem is that the federal government has trampled all over State's rights given to them by the Constitution. States have little say though when the Federal Government basically holds the purse strings. But to the argument about banning cars I believe that would fall under State's Rights just as the war on drugs should fall under. So the Federal Government would be outside of its Constitutional authority to impose such a ban. But for all intents and purposes the Federal Government does have the authority, by default, for the lack of the States fighting for their rights. 

[showmethesnow]

And it is lightly snowing up here on the MD/PA line.

[MN Transplant]

2 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

Have to agree with you. The biggest problem is that the federal government has trampled all over State's rights given to them by the Constitution. States have little say though when the Federal Government basically holds the purse strings. But to the argument about banning cars I believe that would fall under State's Rights just as the war on drugs should fall under. So the Federal Government would be outside of its Constitutional authority to impose such a ban. But for all intents and purposes the Federal Government does have the authority, by default, for the lack of the States fighting for their rights. 

To take the other side, though, the Founders could not have seen the rise of technology, transportation, and communications that have rendered state borders somewhat meaningless.  The use (overuse?) of the Commerce Clause is tacit admission that the 10th is outdated in a modern society.

[psuhoffman]

11 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

Have to agree with you. The biggest problem is that the federal government has trampled all over State's rights given to them by the Constitution. States have little say though when the Federal Government basically holds the purse strings. But to the argument about banning cars I believe that would fall under State's Rights just as the war on drugs should fall under. So the Federal Government would be outside of its Constitutional authority to impose such a ban. But for all intents and purposes the Federal Government does have the authority, by default, for the lack of the States fighting for their rights. 

I agree with federal overreach. But the issue is the reason why behind it. Both of our parties have turned the federal/state rights issue into a joke and a fight for political control. Both parties have simply attempted to shift control of issues to whatever level they control at the time thus giving them the power.   Once both parties started doing that the ability to genuinely fight for state sovereignty was lost.  

[showmethesnow]

57 minutes ago, MN Transplant said:

To take the other side, though, the Founders could not have seen the rise of technology, transportation, and communications that have rendered state borders somewhat meaningless.  The use (overuse?) of the Commerce Clause is tacit admission that the 10th is outdated in a modern society.

If you believe in the premise of a living, breathing document (the other side) then yes you could justify much. But the problem with that is you then give the ability of a handful of men/women (majority in the Supreme Court) to basically rewrite the Constitution as they see fit through interpretation. I myself don't agree with that premise. The founders put provisions in place to change the Constitution (to let it grow with society) as needed. And these provisions guaranteed that it would never be changed on a whim nor that a few or a minority would ever have the ability to make change over the majority. 

[MN Transplant]

1 hour ago, showmethesnow said:

If you believe in the premise of a living, breathing document (the other side) then yes you could justify much. But the problem with that is you then give the ability of a handful of men/women (majority in the Supreme Court) to basically rewrite the Constitution as they see fit through interpretation. I myself don't agree with that premise. The founders put provisions in place to change the Constitution (to let it grow with society) as needed. And these provisions guaranteed that it would never be changed on a whim nor that a few or a minority would ever have the ability to make change over the majority. 

Those provisions have basically been rendered useless, though.  The last amendment that had any sort of impact was 47 years ago and was the eighth Amendment to tweak the voting system.  In the last 100 years we've had the two prohibition amendments, and a bunch of voting/procedural amendments.  The only way the Constitution can grow with society is through the idea of a living document. 

[psuhoffman]

1 hour ago, MN Transplant said:

Those provisions have basically been rendered useless, though.  The last amendment that had any sort of impact was 47 years ago and was the eighth Amendment to tweak the voting system.  In the last 100 years we've had the two prohibition amendments, and a bunch of voting/procedural amendments.  The only way the Constitution can grow with society is through the idea of a living document. 

But what your describing wouldn't deter you if you were ultra conservative and viewed the government as the problem and not something you wanted to be a vehicle to solve problems. I don't agree with that assessment but I understand it. If you truly want less government and a libertarian type society then over limiting the government to the point of ineffectiveness isn't a bad thing as it would force us to solve more problems privately. 

Its only a problem if you view the government as a possible positive  agent that can better society as most liberals do. I'm liberal but I don't harbor animosity towards conservatives. I understand their pov I just don't share it.  I think collectively we can do some things better if we genuinely try. I'm an optimist.  

[psuhoffman]

3 hours ago, WxWatcher007 said:

...and I was so productive today.

This is a fun convo. Given the expansion of the limits of the commerce clause, and how Americans have acclimated to it both in law and policy, I think it'd be really difficult to get a significant rollback. I'm not sure that's what we'd even want given the global economic system which gives a premium to stable and "connected" systems. 

Also, I think we'd all agree that the constitution, despite it's flaws (particularly in the past) is brilliant because of how it balances power and in some ways sets a floor rather than a ceiling when it comes to rights. 

I happen to believe it's a living document, but not just because of what our judiciary says. While the judiciary can be a final arbiter of sorts when it comes to questions of law, every branch of government has its own interpretation of the constitution, and for better and worse, they follow through with it in certain instances (war powers and regulation in the executive, spending and coercive power in the legislative, etc.). On top of that, Americans themselves view the constitution and their rights in ways that inform how the three branches (and states) act. 

How do we get an income tax, labor laws, social safety net programs, and gun policy? I'd argue it's as much of a result of how the branches and American people interpret their rights in relation to the constitution as it is the actual text on the document or a Supreme Court decision. 

I agree it's not what most want but it is what many conservatives want. Even if it causes some turmoil getting there forcing us to solve 90% of our problems through free market private sector means would be a great idea to them. I'm less sold on the solvency of the free market. The history of unregulated capitalism is pretty ugly. 

[showmethesnow]

1 hour ago, MN Transplant said:

Those provisions have basically been rendered useless, though.  The last amendment that had any sort of impact was 47 years ago and was the eighth Amendment to tweak the voting system.  In the last 100 years we've had the two prohibition amendments, and a bunch of voting/procedural amendments.  The only way the Constitution can grow with society is through the idea of a living document. 

How have the provisions been rendered useless? They are functioning exactly as they were meant to. Keeping frivolous and spur of the moment changes at bay not to mention keeping a few/minorities from dictating the Constitution to the majority. When changes were obviously needed and they were supported by the public then changes were made. But we now have an argument for a Living Document and what I quite often find is that this argument is nothing more then a vehicle to circumvent public support to change the Constitution.

[showmethesnow]

8 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

I agree it's not what most want but it is what many conservatives want. Even if it causes some turmoil getting there forcing us to solve 90% of our problems through free market private sector means would be a great idea to them. I'm less sold on the solvency of the free market. The history of unregulated capitalism is pretty ugly. 

You are pretty loose with the term most. Believe it or not there are many Independents that feel the same way as Conservatives.

[Cobalt]

Thought this was cool

 

[psuhoffman]

38 minutes ago, showmethesnow said:

You are pretty loose with the term most. Believe it or not there are many Independents that feel the same way as Conservatives.

It depends on the issue.  Independents are less monolithic. They typically agree with some typically right and left policy points. The way and scope of how the question is phrased matters a lot too. Most Americans when asked about limiting the government  and expanding individual freedoms love the idea. But then when some of the specific policy consequences of such actions are asked they are against it. For instance a majority would agree the government should be more limited in its authority and scope to regulate. No one likes rules. But then when asked if bunsinesses should have the right to sell unsafe products or pollute the air and water or have racist business practices the majority say no. And those are all unfortunate unintended consequences of eliminating government regulatory authority. I'm not using that to say those people agree with the left or me either. But it's more complicated and nuanced then the black and white cut and dry options the two parties on both extremes offer. Most people are somewhere in between. 

Personally I think society has become more complex then the 1700s. Technology has changed the equation. We effect each other a lot more both good and bad. We also have the ability to harm one another of left unchecked way more easily. Society is also less independent now and expects/demands more from government. The thought of regulating clean air and water or food and drugs was unheard of in the 1700s and is assumed and demanded today. I agree ideally amendments should be the way to solve those changes but our partisan politics has rendered that option unrealistic so again this issue is not black and white to me. I agree with you in principle but disagree on practicality.  

Anyways I love these kinds of discussions and being able to have them in a friendly way. I don't mind having to agree to disagree. 

[CAPE]

I dont mind the political talk, but others here would rather it not be in banter, and it tends to become divisive, regardless of the intent.

There is a better place for it. Just a suggestion-

http://www.americanpol.com/

[nw baltimore wx]

@WxUSAF 

There might be 500 in attendance at the Os game right now!

[CAPE]

1 minute ago, nw baltimore wx said:

@WxUSAF 

There might be 500 in attendance at the Os game right now!

Are you there?

I was wondering how many would show up tonight.

[psuhoffman]

12 minutes ago, C.A.P.E. said:

I dont mind the political talk, but others here would rather it not be in banter, and it tends to become divisive, regardless of the intent.

There is a better place for it. Just a suggestion-

http://www.americanpol.com/

Fair enough and I will abide but I never understood why the rules were changed because a few jerks got nasty. People get nasty over lots of things in here anyways and we can't just make everything off limits that upsets people. In weather threads I totally get but banter...plus it's not as easy as just taking it there not everyone here is on there. I disagree but I respect the right of the majority/admins to make the rules. 

[Fozz]

20 minutes ago, C.A.P.E. said:

I dont mind the political talk, but others here would rather it not be in banter, and it tends to become divisive, regardless of the intent.

There is a better place for it. Just a suggestion-

http://www.americanpol.com/

As long as everyone is civil (which seems to be the case ITT), I have no problem with political talk in the banter thread. We talk about many other non-wx related things here, so I don't agree with politics being off limits (again, so long as everyone is civil).

[Fozz]

37 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

It depends on the issue.  Independents are less monolithic. They typically agree with some typically right and left policy points. The way and scope of how the question is phrased matters a lot too. Most Americans when asked about limiting the government  and expanding individual freedoms love the idea. But then when some of the specific policy consequences of such actions are asked they are against it. For instance a majority would agree the government should be more limited in its authority and scope to regulate. No one likes rules. But then when asked if bunsinesses should have the right to sell unsafe products or pollute the air and water or have racist business practices the majority say no. And those are all unfortunate unintended consequences of eliminating government regulatory authority. I'm not using that to say those people agree with the left or me either. But it's more complicated and nuanced then the black and white cut and dry options the two parties on both extremes offer. Most people are somewhere in between. 

Personally I think society has become more complex then the 1700s. Technology has changed the equation. We effect each other a lot more both good and bad. We also have the ability to harm one another of left unchecked way more easily. Society is also less independent now and expects/demands more from government. The thought of regulating clean air and water or food and drugs was unheard of in the 1700s and is assumed and demanded today. I agree ideally amendments should be the way to solve those changes but our partisan politics has rendered that option unrealistic so again this issue is not black and white to me. I agree with you in principle but disagree on practicality.  

Anyways I love these kinds of discussions and being able to have them in a friendly way. I don't mind having to agree to disagree. 

The problem with regulations is that they can have a lot of unintended consequences and lead to all kinds of rent seeking that contributes to economic inequality. Excessive regulations, particularly those that favor the most politically powerful groups, are a big reason (though probably not the only reason) why health care is so ridiculously expensive in this country. And the rest of us pay the price through high premiums and sometimes ridiculous costs for procedures if uninsured.

Health care is just one example... I'm sure there are lots of others.

[psuhoffman]

11 minutes ago, Fozz said:

The problem with regulations is that they can have a lot of unintended consequences and lead to all kinds of rent seeking that contributes to economic inequality. Excessive regulations, particularly those that favor the most politically powerful groups, are a big reason (though probably not the only reason) why health care is so ridiculously expensive in this country. And the rest of us pay the price through high premiums and sometimes ridiculous costs for procedures if uninsured.

Health care is just one example... I'm sure there are lots of others.

Your describing corruption and no argument. I think one difference between the right and left is that the left wants to try to fight corruption while the right sees it as inevitable. One counterpoint is corruption exists in the private sector also. 

I love this discussion but I don't want to ruffle feathers so maybe we can start either a private discussion for just those that want to or move over to the other board linked above. 

[CAPE]

15 minutes ago, Fozz said:

As long as everyone is civil (which seems to be the case ITT), I have no problem with political talk in the banter thread. We talk about many other non-wx related things here, so I don't agree with politics being off limits (again, so long as everyone is civil).

I dont think it is off limits. Like I said, It doesn't bother me, although I wont engage in it here, because others here have asked to keep the politics out.

[CAPE]

3 minutes ago, psuhoffman said:

Your describing corruption and no argument. I think one difference between the right and left is that the left wants to try to fight corruption while the right sees it as inevitable. One counterpoint is corruption exists in the private sector also. 

I love this discussion but I don't want to ruffle feathers so maybe we can start either a private discussion for just those that want to or move over to the other board linked above. 

If you dont want to go over to the PR forum, maybe start a thread in OT. That way it stays out of banter and wont ruffle any feathers here, and others can participate if they choose.